government management of tourism — a thai case study

This article examines the relationship between government and the tourism industry and the problems of that relationship as both strive for more effective management to meet the challenge and changes of the 1990s. Attention is focused on the role of government and the political input, the tourism management agency, the government administrative system, the industry, and the response of these various groups to demands on the tourism sector. The article concentrates on Thailand but many problems experienced are common to most countries and arise from the nature and role of government and the tourism industry and their relationship.

Keywords: government; management: problems; Thailand; tourism

James Elliott is a Lecturer in the Depart- ment of Government at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, 4067, Australia.

‘5 November 1985. *PATA 1984 Year Book; and ASMAL Pacific Report, 1 st Quarter 1986. 3See J. Elliott, ‘Politics, power and tourism in Thailand’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 10, No 3, 1983.

Government management of tourism - a Thai case study

James Elliott

Foreign tourist arrivals in Thailand rose from 81 340 in 1960 to 1.1 million in 1975 to 2.S million in 1986. This success is partly due to a natural environment of sea, sand and sun, friendly people, exotic culture and a central position in the air routes of the region. Thailand has also gained from external factors such as growing world demand for tourism partly based on rising real incomes, more leisure time and lower air fares. These factors have made Thai governments fairly complacent in their attitudes towards tourism.

However, attitudes changed radically when tourism became the top

foreign currency earner in 1982, replacing rice exports. There was a decline in economic growth and in traditional exports in primary production and manufacturing, leading to growing indebtedness and a serious balance of payments deficit. As the Deputy Industry Minister stated, ‘Thailand should try to get more tourists to compensate for the shortfall from tin exports; there is a need for real support to increase this type of industry’.’ There was also a feeling that tourism could help cut unemployment and provide jobs for the increased number wanting to join the work force.

Government became concerned about tourism because of the tourism downturn in 1983, the first since 1976 and only the second fall in 24 years. The decline of the dynamic tourism industry in Singapore was also a warning’ (Table 1). Part of the government’s response to the economic crisis was a tax on Thais travelling abroad to save foreign currency and the devaluation of the Baht in November 1981. Another part of the response was to examine the relationship between government and the tourism industry.

Government, politics and tourism

The role of government in the development of tourism in any country is crucial, but governments must operate within the given environment and with established factors which continually change and react with each other.’ A test of a government’s effectiveness is how it operates within this environment and how well it manages these factors. The internal economic and political environment in Thailand is ideally suited to allow for the development of an excellent tourism product. It is a mixed economy of public and private enterprise, in which the

0261-5177/87/030223-l 0$03.00 0 1987 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd 223

Table 1. Number of overseas visitors and increase over previous year.

Country

Visitors (x 106) 19ao= 1981

% increase/decrease Visitors (x 106)

1982 1983 1984 f98.5= 1985

Thailand 1 .a 0.4 10.1 -1 2 7.1 3.9 2.4 Notes: Singapore 2.5 10.4 4.5 -3.5 4.0 1.3 3.0 ‘PATA 1984 Year Book.

Hong Kong 2.3 10.2 2.9 6.4 13 6 9.5 ‘ASMAL Pacific Report 1 3.4 st quarter

1986

government supports and places few restrictions on the private sector. Despite several military coups, the basic social, economic and administrative system has not been disturbed and financial, business and tourist institutions have continued to develop. Thailand has never been colonized and does not exhibit the same ambivalence towards foreign investors and hotel managers as do former colonies. However, as with most developing countries, it does suffer from a shortage of resources. poor infrastructure, an inefficient, if not corrupt, public service and a perceived potential for political instability. Such constraining factors offset to some extent the more favourable factors and thus challenge the management ability of both the private and public sectors.

A basic first step is for a government to recognize the importance of tourism to the economy and to accept some responsibility for, and make a commitment to, the development of the industry. Because of the nature of the political administrative system. a meaningful commitment requires government to establish permanent machinery within the system and to allocate the necessary resources for the same. This was achieved when Prime Minister Field blarshai Sarit Thanarat established the government management body, the Tourism Organisation of Thailand (TOT), in 1959. Sarit was the most innovative of the post World War II Thai strongmen, and he illustrates the crucial contribution which can be made by an able leader. He also affirmed the importance of economic development and the key role of an independent capitalist private sector which has helped the growth of tourism.

After Sarit, however, little if any attention was given to tourism by the government. Tourism was not on the policy agenda and was given no priority until fairly recently. Governments were in favour of tourism in principle. but their practice was that of benign neglect. This is not to say that successive governments did not approve the objectives and plans drawn up by TOT and the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) over the years. These plans, such as those to allow for the controlled development of important resort areas like Pattaya and Phuket, were approved almost automatically but rarely implemented. Warnings in later plans and by TOT about the deteriora- tion of resorts were ignored.

It is not uncommon, particularly in developing countries, for national plans to be little more than token documents and for them to have little effect on policy in fact. Thai governments gave no priority to tourism - maybe this was correct considering the shortage of resources and other pressing problems. However, government ministers, including prime ministers, have expressed their support and exhorted government departments to cooperate in improvin g services and attracting more tourists, for example by declaring 1981 the Year of Tourism. But there was no ‘real support to increase this type of industry’, no extra resources or political weight were given to tourism, and it was still difficult to get it on to the Cabinet agenda or for TOT to get ‘real support’ from the

224 TOURISM MANAGEMENT September 1987

4Dr Chirayu, Minister of Prime Minister’s Office, EROPA Conference, Bangkok, 9 December 1985. 5The Minister Banvat Banthadtharn was also responsible for the Department of Technical and Economic Co-operation. ‘Somsakai Xuto et al. Strategies and Measures for the Development of Thailand in the 7980s. TURA Institute Bangkok. 1983, p 137. ‘The Prem Coalition Government was defeated in a financial vote because of defections in Parliament on 2 May 1966.

bureaucracy. Lip service was paid, decisions were taken but often not pursued or monitored, hence no implementation took place. Other important decisions were not taken, were allowed to drift, or were taken much later than advisable. For example. there was several years’ delay

before the Cabinet made a decision about the development of Bangkok International Airport. leaving Bangkok behind Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Manila, all major competitors for the tourist dollar.

This approach to policy meant that no firm direction or management guidelines were given to those involved in the industry. As one minister said in reply to a request for policy guidance, ‘the Government has no policy; it will accept any good or reasonable proposals put forward by an

agency’.’ It was not easy for this to happen with tourism, however, partly because responsibility for tourism lay with a junior minister who was not a member of the key Cabinet Economic Council. The minister also had other responsibilities, and had neither a department nor the necessary political or management resources at his disposal.’

The Cabinet is responsible for policy making and control and for ultimate management decisions. Yet the Cabinet is riven by internal factional conflicts and is overwhelmed with business. The situation has not been helped by tourism sectors having been controlled by ministers from different political parties. ‘Among current problems of the agenda is the fact that there are so many matters on the agenda. Many are not policy matters or important national problems requiring solutions’.‘The Prime Minister is primarily concerned with the survival of the government against political and military threats.’ There is little time for tourism which has no particular ideological or political support or opponents. It is generally a non-issue for politicians because it does not impinge on them directly, affect their re-election, or provide financial rewards. Nor does it have the prestige and influential connections of an organization such as Thai Airways International (TG). Above all tourism does not have the power of the military or organized agriculture groups to endanger governments or the ambitions of politicians. Its influence is lessened because it is not a large industry in terms of number of people involved, nor is it well organized or an influential lobby group. Further, its very success as a growth industry has suggested to government that it needs no particular attention or assistance.

It is in the nature of governments to respond to powerful pressures. Tourism does not have such power, and therefore it has been given minimal real support and subject to almost benign neglect. Now, because of strong economic pressures. the role and input of the Thai government is becoming much more dynamic and responsive.

Government management: Tourism Authority of Thailand

There is no ministry of tourism in Thailand. The government has entrusted the management of the tourist industry to the Tourist Authority of Thailand (TAT), formerly TOT. TAT is the national tourism office (NTO) and is responsible for marketing tourism abroad and for its development in Thailand. Total staff is about 500 with 11 offices abroad and six in Thailand. There is a board of six directors from the civil service and three directors from the tourist industry. The chairman is the minister designated by the prime minister to be responsible for tourism. The governor is the chief executive, with three deputy governors responsible for tourism marketing, planning and

TOURISM MANAGEMENT September 1987 225

Thai cast study

development. and TAT administration. It can be argued that TAT has made a substantial contribution to tourism growth with its various marketing activities. including the establishment of a network of offices, and links with industry abroad. It has developed a group of dedicated, experienced, professional officers who provide not only expertise but continuity. The civil service cannot provide such a group.

In Thailand TAT has operated as a pressure group on government and industry, seeking improvements and balanced development. This has been done in various ways, such as giving advice and support to government and private bodies, including training and the establishment of a tourist police force. Immigration and customs procedures have been simplified, infrastructure improved and development plans drawn up for several regions and resorts. TAT has acted as a link body between the various sectors, helping with communication and understanding and often speaking on behalf of the industry. The former Governor served in TAT for 25 years until 1986, while the new Governor has served since 1962. They both therefore have wide experience and excellent links with government and industry, both formally and informally.

However, TAT does have problems, and these are not all due to a low budget. It has rightly emphasized marketing as its main role but some critics say, perhaps unfairly, that TAT has allocated insufficient funds to marketing, while others have suggested that TAT has tended to be too reactive and not innovative or aggressive enough in its marketing” (see Table 2). In this regard the appointment of Thais to manage overseas offices may not always be helpful, even though it may be good for training. The results of the Bicentennial marketing in 1952 and the fall in the number of visitors by 1.21% in 1983 were disappointing, but the 1953 results also reflected a recession in major markets. Nevertheless. according to one leading hotel manager, ‘Thailand lacks an effective public relations means to promote the country’s most indispensable foreign exchange earner . ‘.‘) There is also the danger that marketing can be overemphasized because it is an easier activity to perform ,and does not involve protracted struggles with the bureaucracy - it is the glamorous side of TAT work and involves travel and overseas positions.

TAT has considerable freedom on the marketing side, but in development its role is severely restricted by lack of power and resources and by outside opposition. Only limited success has been achieved in development control. plan implementation. environmental protection and the solution of longstanding problems. Plans have been criticized for being ill conceived, too expensive with unreliable statistics and targets, and thus not capable of being implemented. There is still no

‘PATA 1984 Year Book. development corporation for tourism, and development is still hapha-

‘Managing Director, Imperial Hotel, Bang- zard and piecemeal, with overbuildin g and overexploitation of natural

kok, The Nation, Bangkok, 30 December resources. It is easier to produce paper plans than to implement them

1985. against vested interests and developers. There are also problems which

Table 2. National Tourism Office Budget 1984.

Accommodation country Promotion (%) Administration (%) Research (%) resort development (%)

Thailand 44.9 25.6 6.7 18.9

Singapore 38.2 5.8 0.1 57.9 Hong Kong 59.6 34.6 1.1 4.7


Thai case srudy

can affect any organization, such as empire building, nepotism,

paternalism, too much concentration on paperwork and regulation, poorly qualified or motivated staff, especially at the lower levels. A limited perception of, and a cautious bureaucratic approach to, its functions can also curtail the contribution of TAT.

A major problem for organizations such as TAT is the need for them to operate effectively in both the public and private sectors. Managers recruited as young graduates, who have life-long tenure and are trained internally, can be excellent specialists, but they may not have the qualities required to operate in a competitive overseas market and also within the sensitive Thai political system. The insufficient attention given to education, lobbying and building up support from various groups partly explains the failure of TAT to get its tourism bill accepted

by Parliament in 1979.

Public sector administrative system

Tourism could not exist on its present scale without the support of the public sector, but there are various problems in the relationship which managers need to recognize. First, the formal system, especially in the Third World, does not always reveal actual power relationships. Second, this system is extremely complex, diverse, fragmented, and strongly established. Civil servants are permanent, unlike politicians, and have their own priorities, connections and relationships. For example personnel practices can lead to the appointment of poorly motivated staff and the consequent problems of work quality and implementation. They are normally concerned about current problems rather than long-term objectives. There is a strong emphasis on hierarchy and informal relations, with decision making being long, complex and time-consuming. This is reflected in the difficulties of obtaining decisions on major tourism issues and long-term objectives. The nature of the bureaucratic system tends to lead to poor or non-existent implementation of decisions by the lower echelons of the hierarchy.

A third problem area is that of departmentalism with a multiplicity of agencies each having its own objective and pursuing its own interests. This makes for conflict and means that a lot of time is spent on cooperation and coordination efforts. The practice, under the government of Prime Minister Prem Tinsulanonda, of allocating different departments to different political parties has meant that ‘ . . tourism

issues may not have been completely consistent with each other’, according to the Minister responsible for tourism.“’ For example, the government-owned Thai International has as its main objective the expansion of its share of the market and increased profits. This can lead it to oppose the entry of other scheduled and charter airlines into Thailand, thus acting contrary to the government policy of encouraging more foreign tourists. Departmentalism and narrow expertise can make for a restricted view of tourism and faulty decision making. Technocrats can make mistakes, for instance in forecasting, as when the Board of Investment granted permission for too many new hotels, leading to an oversupply of hotel rooms.

“‘Banyat, Bangkok Post, 21 July 1986.

A fourth problem is the perception of the industry held by bureaucrats and others. Tourism is not rated highly compared to agriculture or other industries - it is seen by some as a luxury industry


Thai cuw study

“Somsakai Xuto, ‘Strategies and measures for the development of Thailand to the 198Os’, The Nation, Bangkok. 3 Janu- ary 1986.

for foreigners and not of benefit to’the mass of the people. Scarce resources should not therefore be used for tourism. There is also a touch of nationalism and morality in the condemnation of the sexual aspects of the industry and its damage to Thailand’s image overseas. This morality is reflected in the opposition to the introduction of gambling casinos. Some civil servants also believe that tourists would visit Thailand whether the government was involved or not.

A fifth problem area is the lack of an effective central body which can direct government agencies and ensure that government policy for tourism is implemented. Central agencies such as the Prime Minister’s Department, Ministry of Finance, Budget Bureau, National Economic and Social Development Board, all ’ . help to make policy and to plan, including allocations of resources, follow-up and evaluation. There is however, no organisation specifically responsible for supervi- sion and acceleration of the work at this level.“’ Further, these agencies can be weak or ineffective, or give tourism low priority as against their own objectives. The agencies and the responsible minister of communications have little control over a strong organization like TG. The central agencies are not sympathetic to extending TAT’s power and consider that the private sector should make a greater contribution. TAT Governor Somchai has been critical of the slowness of the bureaucracy in pointing out that delays in the approval of special budgets affect TAT promotional work.

Tourism industry and government

There are various factors which impede between industry and government. First,

the improvement of relations the industry is conditioned by

competitive market forces, with profits and growth the main objectives. The industry is dynamic and has provided the capital and expertise which have allowed for almost continual growth in the past two decades. It has had considerable freedom from government interference, and neither understands nor sympathizes with the political and bureaucratic objectives and constraints which operate in the public sector. The very success of the industry has made it more critical of public organizations ranging from local government to TG. Thus problems arise because of differing objectives and,environments.

Second, problems can arise from the nature of the industry. There is not only diversity in terms of services, size, location, ownership and market, there is also fragmentation and conflict within various sectors. Every manager wants to do his own thing and build up his own organization. Even when a sector can agree to have a peak association, such as the Thai Hotels Association (THA), to represent it there can still be conflict, as in 1983, between the large and smaller hotels as to whether THA should make a contribution to the new convention promotion association. Links and communications within the industry are poor, and cooperation and coordination of policy and action are difficult. These factors make it hard for the industry to agree on industry-wide objectives or strategies, or to form a unified front. They also make the management of industry/government relations a major problem and do not inspire respect from public agencies.

The various defects within the industry comprise a third set of problems with government. For example, parts of industry sometimes act illegally or against the public interest and project a bad image of


Thai cast- study

tourism. These activities can include the overdevelopment of sites, the destruction of areas of natural beauty, bribery and corruption, unofficial or unscrupulous agents, guides or managers, illegal taxis, exploitation of workers and unsavoury sexual establishments. The industry has also

been accused of neglect of staff training and overseas marketing, and an unwillingness or inability to put its house in order. Some sections of the government believe that the industry is only concerned with profits without any consideration of Thailand and its people.

Fourth, the actual process of communication and dialogue between industry and government needs to be improved. The main links are the peak membership associations such as THA and the Association of Thai Travel Agents (TTA). These associations can be represented on various government bodies, for instance the President of the TTA is a member of the board of TAT. There are also informal links between members of the industry and the government, politicians and bureaucracy. The frequently tenuous linkages and processes, however. often fail to ensure effective communication or satisfactory results. A sign of the lack of understanding was industry opposition to the Tourism Control Bill of 1979 and the delay in reaching an agreement on a new bill until 1986. Industry is very suspicious of government attempts to regulate and control it. Relations between the two sectors are further strained when, instead of using the normal channels, the industry criticizes government through the media.

A fifth problem area is the industry’s perception of governments’ failures, real or otherwise. The industry is dependent on government for numerous services including infrastructure, transportation, security and overseas marketing. Government is considered to be inefficient because of delays and the lack of implementation of policy decisions. The President of THA ’ . . asserted that the government has to come out

with more supporting measures for the tourism industry, and not mere policies’. ”

Sixth, industry also finds it difficult to deal with the public sector

because of the latter’s diversity, complexity, conservatism and the lack of cooperation, if not outright conflict, between various organizations. There is little understanding of the needs of the industry and no sense of urgency. The frustration which is often felt by the industry in its dealings with government have led one industry leader to suggest that maybe dictatorship would provide more efficient management.” The industry finds negotiating with the government necessitates numerous time- consuming meetings, for instance over the proposed new tourism bill and the convention association. There is a feeling that government has failed in not solving long-standing problems such as airport security and unofficial and meterless taxis, nor has it responded to more recent demands for duty-free shops in town or the dropping of duty on wines.

In 19% seven foreign chambers of commerce claimed that there were not enough aircraft seats available during the peak season and airfares had increased every year, so reducing the number of tourists.”

Response to the tourism challenge

“The Nation, Bangkok, 30 December The Thai Government has recognized and started to respond to the

198.5. needs of tourism, not because of the organizational problems outlined,

%terview, 10 January 1986. but because of severe economic pressure. This response to pressure is ‘%angkok Post, 13 December 1965. common in the political system. Earlier criticism of the government


Thui case s1ud.v

neglect of tourism, from THA, TTA and the Mayor of Pattaya in August 1982, had no effect, but the economic message got through. One

of Thailand’s leading businessmen said, ‘Tourism is an industry which is labour intensive’. He argued that tourism. . income can be increased twofold, threefold, even fivefold within three years, if we took this activity seriously’.”

In the 1986 election campaign, the largest political party. the Democratic Party, emphasized the importance of tourism. Bodies within the administrative system started to take tourism seriously and the Government Reorganization and Bureaucratic Reform Commission argued that the government should improve its strategy and take the lead rather than relying on the private sector to fill this role.‘6 The Board of Investment and technocrats of the NESDB, who were among the chief economic advisers of the Prime Minister. pressed for action.

Banyat, the Minister responsible for tourism, was close to Prem, and ministers attached to the Prime Minister’s Department were active in

support of tourism. The Prime Minister was therefore persuaded to make the crucial political commitment to the industry and give the necessary political support for action.

Prime Minister Prem said that the government would boost tourism and was L . . . committed to supporting promotion and development’.” He gave orders to the civil service to support tourism and took part in tourist promotion campaigns in the USA - the first time that a Thai Prime Minister had done so. The Cabinet approved a draft control bill for tour operators and guides and made 1987 the Year of Tourism to coincide with the King’s 60th birthday; extra funds were also allocated.

A key test of government commitment to a policy is the budgetary allocation. In the case of TAT this was increased by a special allocation in 1984, and in 1985 it was given the biggest budget in its history at a time when other agencies were either being cut or held at negative growth. However, the TAT promotional budget is still well below those of Singapore and Malaysia’” (see Table 3).

The government has also helped tourism in other ways, such as the cut in the hotel room tax from 16.5% to 8% in December 1983 and in electricity charges in 1986. There was an increase in the number of charter flights allowed into Thailand to 170 in 1984 and a further 10 from Singapore to Pattaya were allowed in late 1985. Generally the bureaucracy has been much more responsive in helping tourism by simplifying procedures and cutting controls or duties, and strong efforts have been made to control the situation at Bangkok airport. Provincial governors have become more aware of tourism needs and have sought assistance. NESDB has been given a new role under the Sixth Plan which began in 1986 to coordinate and monitor tourism development.

Several working groups and committees have been established to help the industry, the most important bein, 0 the Joint Public/Private Sector

“Mr Paul Sithi-Amnuai, Chairman of PSA Consultative Committee (PPCC) with a sub-committee on tourism. This Group, Bangkok Post, 29 December 1985.

‘s 8 July 1983. became particularly important when it was reformed in September 1983

” 29 October 1985. with a minister from the Prime klinister’s Department who was close to

” PATA Annual Statistical Report, 1984. Prem becoming chairman. It was an ad hoc body with 50 representatives

Source: PATA 1984 Annual Statistical Report.

Table 3. NT0 promotional budget 1984 (SUS).

Thailand 1 575 199 Singapore 10 253 393 Hong Kong 7946710


Thai case study

attending, including some of the top leaders from the public and private

sector such as the NESDB Secretary General, the Communication Ministry Permanent Secretary, the Deputy President of TG and the President of the THA. Various problems about Bangkok and the provinces were raised and proposals made on matters such as airports, taxis, electricity charges, duty-free shops, flights, an oversupply of hotel rooms and marketing. They asked that 100 million Baht be put aside for promotion from the 600 million annual income from the departure tax.”

The PPCC is a sign of the much closer links and cooperation between the two sectors and an acceptance that they need each other. Industry has realized that it must make more of a contribution to marketing and there have been several joint campaigns overseas between TAT, TG and various hotels. Joint campaigns have also been mounted in Thailand, including exhibitions, but the most important initiative has been the establishment of the Thai Convention Promotion Association

(TCPA)*’ with 55 members covering 13 types of business from the private and public sectors. Government agencies have been generally much more willing to cooperate with the private sector, and the Airports Authority and TG have been making special efforts.

Many people concerned with tourism in Thailand believe that the actions taken by government are insufficient, that there is still too much delay and ineffective implementation of policies. Various suggestions have been made to establish a development corporation and task force to investigate and implement solutions. Banyat himself has said that Thailand has many agencies covering tourism under different ministries but that unfortunately there is no coordination among them. There is a need for a ‘corporate body’ to be directly responsible for tourism. It has been said that ‘ . . . the planning and implementation of schemes to promote tourism must be action-orientated and placed under the direction of a person with the drive and energy to make tourism Thailand’s top foreign exchange earner’.*’ A more radical proposal has come from the TG Vice-President for one executive to spearhead a united tourism agency covering TG, TAT and the Airports Authority.

The ultimate government solution would be to create the ministry of tourism as proposed by Prime Minister Seni in the mid-1970s before he lost office. TAT has long argued that it should be raised to ministerial level in order to have sufficient authority and resources to stop bad development, help the provinces, influence other agencies and have a direct voice in the Cabinet. At the moment TAT is too dependent on other agencies which ignore its proposals. This suggestion is strongly opposed by various groups, who view it as a sign of empire building by TAT and suggest that it would have little or no beneficial effect on tourism. A ministry would be more bureaucratic and could exacerbate the inefficiency and delays. It would have less freedom than TAT and be less responsive than the present agencies which now have to compete against each other. The experience of the communication ministry suggests that a tourism ministry would not be able effectively to direct other public agencies. A ministry could not provide the expertise, commercial understanding and sensitivity which is essential for marketing and working with industry in a volatile competitive environment. In a typical Thai compromise the TAT Board proposed that TAT be raised

“29 October 1985. in status to a Bureau which would allow for expansion, greater

“Officially registered September 1984. flexibility and efficiency, and ensure greater cooperation among the

“‘Post opinion’, Bangkok Post, 20 Janu- various agencies. The NESDB supports raising TAT’s status in the ary 1986. Sixth Plan.

TOURISM MANAGEMENT September 1987

Thai case srudy

Further reform needed? Thailand is responding to its government management problems in tourism, but institutional changes alone are not sufficient. A strong political commitment and input into the process is essential. This should involve the Prime Minister and be subject to continual direction and control by a senior minister. The government should have clear and consistent policies and priorities for the industry which should be explained to all concerned. It is only government which can ensure that financial and other resources are available and that there is coordination and unity of policy among the independent, self-serving agencies of the complex bureaucratic labyrinth which is the Thai public sector. There needs to be much more understanding of tourism in the public sector and a direct involvement of top officials in the major problem areas. A change of attitude is needed and, as the Governor of the Airport Authority of Thailand said about his agency, ‘It’s a profit making operation and we have to run it as a business. The bureaucratic system must no longer exist, otherwise we cannot compete with others’.”

Whatever the status, power and resources available to the tourism management agency, it must also strive for expertise. competence, commitment, innovation, sensitivity and responsiveness. No organization can gain all the qualities it needs, but high-calibre managers are essential to engender a close relationship between the public and private sector by working together for the implementation of common objectives. For as the TTA President said after the Phuket riot and fire of 1986, ‘Tourism is a very sensitive industry where successful promotion depends much on image, stability and security of the area . a great deal of effort and good will over a long period from all concerned to build its fame worldwide is needed’.”

Much of the Thai tourism industry lies in the private sector. Every effort must be made to ensure that its enterprise and initiative are not stifled so that it is able to respond competitively to highly dynamic market demands. Management of relations between the various private groups and with the public sector needs to be improved to allow deeper

understanding and closer cooperation. There will always be problems in tourism because of the volatile

competitive market situation, and the diversity and conflicting objectives within and between the public and private sectors. Other possible problem areas which have as yet received little attention in Thailand include wasteful use of scarce financial and other resources, destruction of areas of natural beauty, exploitation and prostitution, cultural pollution and poor distribution of the gains from tourism. This inequitable distribution is recognized by TAT in its attempt to encourage development in poor regions. Although it is recognized that in a developing country solutions may only be partial and improvements may come slowly, Prime Minister Prem has emphasized the importance

of tourism, ‘Tourism is a vital industry which could contribute to international understanding and cooperation as well as bringing substantial economic and social value to the nation’.”

The government tourism management system not only has to

**Air Marshal Pandit S&worn. Business recognize, but also to plan for and to try and solve the problems of the

Review. Banqkok, November 1985. industry. It must also be able to evaluate sectional tourism interests “Bangkok Post, 24 June 1986. 24’lnternational Congress and Convention

as against the public interest and national needs while attempting to

Association General Assembly’, Bangkok achieve the wider objectives of international understanding and Post, 29 October 1985. cooperation.


government management of tourism — a thai case study

Documents