សាកលវិទ្យាលយ័ភូមនិ្ទភនំពេញ Royal University of Phnom Penh

Perceptions of Owners on Pro-Poor Micro and Small Tourism Enterprise

Development in Siem Reap:

Challenges and Opportunities for the Poor in Food and Beverage Value Chain.

NHEM Sochea

Supported by: UNESCO Chair of the University of Bergamo, Italy

March 2014

សាកលវិទ្យាលយ័ភូមនិ្ទភនំពេញ ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF PHNOM PENH

Perceptions of Owners on Pro-Poor Micro and Small Tourism Enterprise

Development in Siem Reap:

Challenges and Opportunities for the Poor in Food and Beverage Value

Chain.

Researcher: NHEM Sochea

Supported by: UNESCO Chair of the University of Bergamo, Italy

March 2014

i

ABSTRACT

Micro and Small tourism enterprises is the backbone of tourism development in Cambodia.

Despite so, this form of development challenges myriad issues that need to be addressed in

order to expand further opportunities for the poor. RGC and other key stakeholders strike to

bring prosperous growth for all from the sector. However, the outputs from these efforts are

somehow skeptical. Poor and vulnerable are believed to gain minimal advantages from such

development. This is major reason this study is conducted. Specifically, it explores the

perceptions of restaurant owners on the poor and how can they contribute to support them

through ensuring employment while making benefit for their operation. This study employs

both quantitative and qualitative methods in collecting the primary data. For the data analysis,

SPSS and Thematic analysis are utilized.

The results reveal that micro and small tourism enterprises are main factors bridging the gap

between the poor (both local and new comers) and tourism industry as a whole. These

enterprises, despite limited benefits to the poor (low wages and other benefit are very flexible

and information), are highly recommended. Most of the respondents claimed that limited

qualification of their employees does not hinder them from being employed. This is mainly

due to the nature of micro and small tourism enterprises that are not picky in terms of

qualification. Other incentives may also be beneficial for the workers, even though there is no

clear written policy in regard to employment.

However, there are critical suggestions that employee‘s qualification need to be improved in

order to ensure better opportunities and pay rises. In this regards, government and NGOs as

well as small scale enterprises themselves need to work collaboratively to ensure prosperous

growth that benefit everyone in the industries, particularly the poor.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am indebted many people whose guidance, advice and assistance have contributed

significantly to my research. First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere thanks to

my supervisor Dr. Neth Baromey, Head of Tourism Department (RUPP) for exceptionally

critical advice and guidance throughout the whole processes of my research. He was

enthusiastic and supportive to keep my writing move forward. Without his on-going

motivation and in-depth supervision, this paper might not have been possible.

Second, I would like to extent my heartfelt thanks to Professor Phal Des, vice Rector of

Royal University of Phnom Penh and the UNESCO Chair of the University of Bergamo, Italy

for granting my research.

Third, I really appreciate kind assistance from friends who were willing to support and give

critical suggestions during the process of my writing. In addition, I would like to thanks them

for their effort and invaluable time during my fieldwork.

Last but not least, without hesitation, I am indebted to my family, especially my beloved

mother, Chum Sothet and dearest wife, By Molyvann who constantly provide both spiritual

and emotional support during my thesis writing. This powerful strength paves me the way to

successfully finish my writing.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………………… i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……………………………………………………………………….. ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………………………. vi

LIST OF TABLE ………………………………………………………………………………… vii

LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………………………… viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………… 1

1.1. Research Problem …………………………………………………………………2

1.2. Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………… 3

1.3. Study Objectives………………………………………………………………...... 3

1.4. Research Questions …………………………………………………………..….. 4

1.5. Significance of the Study …………………………………………………..……. 4

iv

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………..……… 4

2.1 Overview of Tourism Development in Cambodia……………………...………... 6

2.2 Conceptualizing Pro-Poor Tourism ……………………………………………….7

2.3 Tourism and Poverty Reduction …………………………………………………..8

2.4 Pro-Poor Micro and Small Tourism Enterprises critics………………………….. 9

2.5 Is small Beautiful in Tourism Sector? …………………………………………….10

2.6 Definition Micro and Small Tourism Enterprises ………………………….……..11

2.7 Micro and Small Tourism Development ………………………………………….12

2.8 Pro-Poor Tourism Approaches within UNWTO Framework……………………..14

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ………………………………………16

3.1 Conceptual Framework …………………………….……………………………..16

3.2 Analytical Framework …………………………………………………………….16

3.3 Research Design …………………………………………………….………….....17

3.4 Sampling and Sample Size …………………………………….……………….....18

3.5 Primary Data ……………………………………………………..………………..19

3.6 Secondary Data …………………………………………..………………………..19

3.7 Scope and Limitation of the Studies ………………………………………………19

3.8 Data analysis method ………………………………………………………….....20

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION………………………..18

4.1 Socio-Demographic of the Respondents ………………………………………....21

4.2 Willingness to Support the Poor ……………………………………………….....24

4.3 The Challenges of the Poor and Prospective Return on Pro-Poor Business

Practice……………………………………………………………………………...32

4.4 How Poor Can Access Better Output From the MSTE Development ……………..34

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION …………………………..……....36

v

CHAPTER 6: RECOMMENDATION …………………………………………….……37

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………….…….…..38

Appendix: Questionnaire .………………………………………………………………...40

vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATNS

DoT: Provincial Department of Tourism

GDP: Gross Domestic Product

MoVL: Ministry of Vocational Training

MoT: Ministry of Tourism

MSTE: Micro and Small Tourism Enterprise

PPT: Pro-Poor Tourism

RGC: Royal government of Cambodia

SR: Siem Reap Province

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Socio-demographic of the respondent 22

Table 2 Employees‘ average salary (Micro and Small restaurant enterprises) 25

Table 3 Other incentive for staff in Micro and Small restaurant enterprises

26

Table 4 who do you prefer to employ?

28

Table 5 Means of announcement

29

Table 6 Owners‘ perception on ―poor‖ 30

Table 7 Willingness to support the poor

31

Table 8 The challenges of the poor

33

Table 9 Return from pro-poor practices for venture themselves

34

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 The growth of domestic tourist 6

Figure 2 Top ten international tourism arrivals 7

Figure 3 Sources of owners‘ capital 24

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Tourism has been regarded as an important sector with economic potentials to contribute to

poverty reduction in the developing countries (UNWTO, 2001). Beside economic evidence

through income generation, it is also supportive to socio-cultural and environment

dimensions within destination regions.

Cambodia has become one of the fastest-growing tourism destinations in South- East Asia. In

2012, it hosted about 3.5 million and approximately 8 million international and domestic

tourists respectively. As consequence, total tourism receipt was about $ 2 billion which

contributed approximately 12% of GDP into Cambodian economy and creating roughly

350000 direct employments. Meanwhile, Siem Reap-Angkor area received about 2 million

international tourists (Ministry of Tourism, 2012). There is obvious evident to proof that

tourism has had a profound economic impact upon Siem Reap Province, but the doubt is

always raised as to how much of this impact covers to various aspect of local economy in this

province. Despite the spectacular growth of the tourism sector in the last decade, Siem Reap

has remained one of the poorest province in Cambodia (T&L, 2007). The study conducted by

the Ministry of tourism, and the Ministry of Commerce suggested a broad estimation of 40%

economic leakage in the tourism sector in Cambodia and this is expected to continue through

years. However, as revealed in another study done by the ADB-funded Greater Mekong

Subregion (GMS) Tourism Sector Strategy gives indicative targets of moving economic

leakage to 24% in 2015 for GMS countries (T&L, 2009).

Beside its potential in economic contribution, Tourism is also the main source for directly

and indirectly employment and it also provides a large share of the demand for goods and

2

services. Urban tourism-related employment helps switch underemployed in rural area,

particularly for youth. This employment generally enjoys higher wages and this helps reduce

poverty for both new urban and rural area through the eventual increase on the rural wage

rate as well as through remittances from urban labor (T&L, 2009: Tourism Sector Enabling

Environment).

The dynamic development trend of tourism in Siem Reap province is particularly enhanced

by micro small and medium enterprises strength. Among those, food and beverage sectors

play important roles in this development. Accordingly to IFC-MPDF value chain survey data

in 2006, the total turnover of F&B value chain unit in Siem Reap was estimated over US$21

million. In 2008, according to Department of Tourism in Siem Reap, the total restaurants

operating in the province were 113 and out of these 89 were micro and small enterprises

which representing 89% of the total (Department of Tourism, 2008).

1.1 Research Problem

Cambodia economy basically depends on micro small and medium enterprises. According to

ADB (2008), it represents 99% of all enterprises and contributes 45% of total employment

shares. As in rectangular development strategy, private sector is inclusively important for

economic development in Cambodia. By understand its significance, RGC has encouraged

diverse actions in development strategies to ensure smooth growth and ultimately develop

SME development framework, business registration and licensing. Along with this, there are

many micro small and medium investments in tourism sector, especially in world-class

touristic destinations-Siem Reap Areas.

3

Even so, Seim Reap province is still known as one of the poorest provinces in Cambodia.

Economic leakage is still very high although many efforts have been exercised to mitigate.

Pro-poor tourism development has been implemented in the province in order to widen the

opportunities of the poor to such development. However, margin benefit to the poor is still

relative insignificant. Poor people are challenging with number of constrains which hinder

them from accessing benefits from tourism development.

1.2 Purpose of the Study

The major purpose of this study is to examine how the poor extend greater benefit from

current MSEs tourism development, particularly in food and beverage chain. Using a case

study of pro-poor tourism in MSEs development in Siem Reap town, this study will further

explore in-depth on possibility to intensify the role of the poor in economic diversification

through expansion of income and employment generation, access to finance, social & market

access, technical skills and also policy intervention.

1.3 Study Objectives

In order to achieve the main purpose of the study, the researcher sets the following specific

objectives:

To find out the constrains that limit the poor from benefiting in tourism MSEs in

food and beverage unit

To find out the factors that allow the poor to intensify their opportunities in

tourism SME in food and beverage chain, especially in terms of employment

To find out how to maximize the opportunities of the poor in tourism MSE in food

and beverage chain

4

1.4 Research Questions

In order to respond to the aforementioned research objectives, the following research

questions will be raised:

What are the challenging constrains that limit the poor from benefiting in tourism

MSEs in food and beverages?

How do small scale restaurant owners view ―poor‖?

How can owner contribute to the employability of the poor in their business?

From owners view point, what are the challenges that poor might face to get the job?

What are the factors that allow the poor to intensify their opportunities in tourism

MSE in food and beverage?

How can the poor maximize their opportunities in current tourism MSE development,

particularly in terms of employment?

1.5 Significance of the Study

Pro-poor tourism MSEs has been viewed as one of the important component for sustainable

tourism development. In order to reach its potential, all key stakeholders need to ensure all

aspects that allow the poor to have greater access in such development. Many studies have

revealed on-going growth in tourism development in Siem Reap as well as in the investment

trend, but to what extend this sector supports local poor people in harnessing the benefit from

this growth is still doubtful, especially in food and beverage chain.

In this regards, this research will be critical one for development partners as well as

government to have better understanding on contemporary issues in pro-poor tourism MSE in

food and beverage chain. The prospective findings will encourage the key players and

government to develop suitable policies to support the poor. Moreover, this will also

contribute to fix economic leakages from tourism destination by intensifying the

5

opportunities for the poor. Lastly, good tourism image of the destination region could be

cultivated from such careful development framework.

6

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview of Tourism Development in Cambodia

Tourism has been considered as a pillar for Cambodia‘s economic development. The

country‘s second largest economic sector, Cambodia has sustained average annual visitor

growth of more than 21% over the last decade with tourism revenues increasing almost 6 fold

in the same period. In 2012 tourism receipt has contributed US $2,210 billion to the national

economy. In this same year, international tourist arrivals surpassed 3.5 million representing

an increase of 24.4% from 2011, whilst the domestic travel market totaled some 7.9 million

trips in 2011. Cambodia‘s rate of tourism growth surpassed worldwide international tourism

arrivals (+7%) including arrivals to the Asia-Pacific (+14%).

Figure 1: The growth of domestic tourist

Source: Ministry of Tourism, 2011

7

Cambodia‘s Tourism Sector, 2011, offered additional 350,000 direct jobs and millions of

indirect jobs as it registered 2.88 million international tourists at growth rate of 14 percent

compared to 2011 with the domestic tourist growth approximately 8 million, an increase of 3

percent. 1.9 billion in revenue was generated last year, injecting into the Cambodian economy

the equivalent of 22.1 percent of GDP and Cambodia received about one million arrivals for

first quarter of 2012, making a 28% increase against the corresponding period in 2011. As

stated by MoT, the tourism sector will create approximately 800,000 direct jobs, and millions

indirect jobs in 2020.

Figure 2: Top ten international tourism arrivals

Source: Ministry of Tourism, 2012

2.2 Conceptualizing of Pro-Poor Tourism

Pro-poor tourism (PPT) as defined by Bennett, Roe, and Ashley (1999) is tourism that

generates net benefit for the poor (benefits greater than costs). PPT‘s strategy primarily

focuses on unlocking opportunities for the poor within tourism industry, rather than

expanding the overall size of the sector. Successful PPT is intertwined with whole tourism

industry as it cannot be solely developed to reach its maximum extent (Goodwin 2008).

8

PPT‘s priority is to ensure the commercially viability that required to take myriad of factors

into account such as product quality, marketing, investment and business skills and inclusion

of the private sectors. Private sector inclusion and the mainstream industry in originating

markets and destinations is the heart of strategy proposed in the original work on tourism and

poverty elimination. Failing to accomplish these tasks has been a major weakness. (Ashley,

Goodwin & Roe (2001)

2.3 Tourism and Poverty Reduction

Pro-poor tourism is types of tourims that generates net benefits for the poor (benefits greater

than costs). Strategies for pro-poor tourism focus specifically on unlocking opportunities for

the poor within tourism, rather than expanding the overall size of the sector (‗tilting‘ not

expanding the cake) (Bennett, Roe, and Ashley 1999). It complements a successfully

developing tourism industry and is not done in isolation of the bigger picture. Pro-poor

tourism needed to connect with the mainstream because pro-poor tourism cannot succeed

without successful development of the whole tourism destination. The pro-poor tourism

(PPT) approach was predicated on engagement with the mainstream industry, and recognized

from the outset that tourism could only make a significant contribution to the elimination of

poverty where it occurred at a scale sufficient to impact on a significant number of

households, and to contribute enough to household incomes to raise them out of poverty.

PPT required commercial viability must be a priority. This requires close attention to product

quality, marketing, investment in business skills, and inclusion of the private sector (Ashley,

Roe, and Goodwin 2001). As in Adam Black at all (2008), it is clear that some of the receipts

in developing countries have no impact on poverty relief because they are spent on imports or

earned by foreign workers or businesses, resulting in high leakages. McCulloch, Winters and

Cirera (2001) estimate that between 55% and 75% of tourism spending leaks back to

9

developed countries. The leakage of foreign currency, particularly through imports, is long-

recognized in the economic impact literature. Traditional impact studies take account of such

leakages but are insufficient on their own to be informative about poverty relief.

Poverty relief has rarely been discussed in the context of the distributional effects of tourism

across the economy as a whole. Aspects of poverty can include low incomes, low levels of

wealth, a poor environment, little or no education, and vulnerability (McCulloch et al 2001).

2.4 Pro-Poor Micro and Small Tourism Enterprises critics

Harrison in his critique of pro-poor tourism accused [PPT] of failing to confront mass tourism

and of failing to take sufficient account of commercial viability and access to markets, with

NGO and INGO representatives preferring instead to seek aid money for projects (Harrison

2008). Quite so, the criticism is valid of the practice of pro-poor tourism but not of its

conceptualization. The importance of the market and commercial viability have been

emphasized from the beginning, and the PPT Partnership has been critical of much of the

work justified by the rhetoric, but not the principles, of pro-poor tourism (Goodwin and Roe

2006 and Goodwin 2008).

Harrison in his critique points out that there are several arguments to the effect that PPT

projects have simply not delivered benefits, or adequate benefits, to the poor, and that the

term ‗pro-poor‘ tourism is a misnomer (Harrison, 2008).

The PPT Partnership has argued that initiative can only be described as pro-poor where it is

possible to demonstrate a net benefit for particular individuals or groups—the beneficiaries of

the initiative (PPT Partnership 2005). Each of these initiatives demonstrated that close

engagement with the private sector ensured that initiatives could result in significant net

livelihood benefits for the poor.

10

Jamison et al. (2004) stress that policies assisting local communities to overcome obstacles in

developing and sustaining small and medium-sized tourist enterprises should be a ―central

focus‖ of governments pursuing sustainable development strategies; particularly in the areas

of training and capacity building, helping in the development of business plans, providing

micro-credit schemes and most importantly providing advice to small-scale enterprises. This

was confirmed by Scheyvens‘ (2006) desk study of NZAID‘s support to tourism in the

region, which noted that a lack of business experience among local populations and poor

access to credit were major constraints to local ownership and control of tourism enterprises.

A key problem is that small-scale initiatives are often not viable, being established without

adequate attention paid to or resources to fund publicity and marketing, and lacking

connections to mainstream tourist enterprises (Butler, 1990). Harrison (2003) and Sofield

(2003) further point out that the relationship between tourism and community development is

both complex and problematic, with the benefits often being secured by local elites and a

small number with business experience. It has also been noted that while small-scale

initiatives will eventually evolve over time, often into something that replicates conventional

mass tourism (Butler, 1980; Doxey, 1975; William, 1982).

2.5 Is Small Beautiful in Tourism Sector?

Small-scale tourism is believed to enhance local ownership and control over tourism,

increasing the likelihood that benefits stay within local areas and reduce leakages (Brohman,

1996; Cater, 1993; Guthunz and von Krosigk, 1996; Singh, 2003; Woodley, 1993). Despite of

the fact that mass tourism contribute significantly to community development, it is commonly

believed that less powerful groups in society can actively participate and take advantages

from small-scale ventures than in large, capital intensive enterprises (Hampton, 1998). A

study conducted by Sofield (2003) and Schevvens (2005 & 2008) revealed that local

11

residents were successful in gaining a significant degree of economic and political

empowerment through small-scale tourism activities due to a facilitating government

environment and Scheyvens (2005: 135) identifies significant social and cultural benefits of

small-scale tourism, chiefly their role in effectively rejuvenating a number of rural villages,

as well as enhancing local pride and reducing rural urban migration. As in UNTWO (2004),

the facilitation of small-scale ventures fits with the well-founded competitive strategies for

developing destinations focused on forms of tourism that have wide linkages with resources

locally available and unique, such as cultural tourism.

Despite the potential benefits, few developing country governments have chosen to pursue a

strategy that prioritizes small-scale development. However, this may cause more

environmental harm than small-scale tourism because of the heavy demands placed on land,

water and energy (Ioannides and Holcomb, 2003). In addition, economic benefits are not

always as high as they might seem as there can be heavy leakages associated with large scale

tourism through the heavy reliance on imported products, dependence on expatriate

management staff and the repatriation of profits.

2.6 Definition Micro and Small Tourism Enterprises

The term MSTE is contested concept, thus it is not easy to define. Different countries may

coin its definition differently, yet it is commonly based upon their economic conditions.

Despite of this, there are number of common criteria that are usually used to define MSTE.

These include number of staff, total net assets, scale volumes, sectors, and turnover (Ganbold

2008).

Each country selects one or more of these criteria to define their own MSE. In Cambodia, as

defined in the SME development framework in 2005 stated that MSEs are firms that employ

12

less than 50 employees and its assets including land not exceed USD 250,000 (SME Sub-

committee, 2005).

In tourism sector, MSTE is defined as any micro and small firms operating in tourism

industry and employ less than 20 employees. It includes: (1) Sole Operation (not employ any

staff), Micro enterprise (employ between 1-4 employees), and (3) Small enterprise (employ

between 5-19 employees). To get deeper understanding of the complexity of business linkage

in tourism sectors, Sterren (2008) also supported the above definition and suggested the

classification of MSTE in the destination as following. MSTE can be divided into tourism

self-employed, non-specialized tourism micro-enterprises, specialized tourims micro-

enterprises, and small specialized tourism enterprises. Each component also bases on number

of employees and distinct characteristics. However, seasonal characteristics of tourism

industry many restrict the MSTEs to be flexible and increase the need of finance during the

low season period (Sterren, 2008; UNWTO, 2005). During the low season period, most of

tourism industries are targeted to cut-off their full-time employees which it need a sufficient

working capital to cover the operational costs of that period.

2.7 Micro and Small Tourism Development

The Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) sector play an important role in stimulating the

local economy. In developing country context, many studies suggested that improving

economic diversification through increasing earnings, foreign exchange, investment, job

opportunities as well as the mitigation of negative social and cultural effects are not best

promoted through hosting big scale investment and large tourism enterprises. In contrast, the

advantages of developing local micro and small tourism firms are stressed. MSEs have been

considered as one of the key mainstreaming factors to a national poverty reduction strategy

(T&L, 2009).

13

The development of smaller sized firms concerns the role of informal tourism enterprises and

associated questions of poverty alleviation. It is recognized that in developing countries

informal tourism enterprises occupy the foundation in the entrepreneurship ladder. Several

studies disclose that the sellers or suppliers of handicraft goods, food and beverage, street

guides, or the providers of small scale transport services, are marginal, but simultaneously

dependent upon the dominant larger tourism enterprises (Britton 1982; Crick 1992; Dahles

1998; Timothy & Wall 1997; Wahnschafft 1982). For the majority of such informal tourism

enterprises, the prospects for graduation to more established small enterprises are extremely

limited (Britton 1992; Oppermann 1993; Telfer 2002; Timothy & Wall 1997).

In the wave of the new pro-poor tourism writings, however, informal tourism enterprises are

shown to assume a critical role in the livelihoods of poor communities and in the alleviation

of poverty. Especially in rural areas of the developing world, small firms linked to the

mainstream tourism sector may be extremely important in terms of their livelihood impacts

(Ashley et al. 2001; Shah & Gupta 2000). Roe et al. (2002) stresses that many people

participate in tourism through small enterprises, including selling drinks, food and crafts;

supplying cultural services — such as dance or music shows; or supplying inputs to

accommodation facilities, such as locally produced foods or building materials. Although

often either neglected by governments in tourism planning or viewed as a nuisance and

subject to official harassment, the role of informal and micro-enterprises is accorded

considerable focus in initiatives for developing a ―pro-poor‖ tourism agenda (Ashley et al.

2000, 2001; Goodwin 1998, 2000; Shah & Gupta 2000). Overall, it is contended that the

informal tourism sector is where opportunities for small-scale enterprise or labor by the poor

are maximized (Ashley et al. 2000: 3). Improving the access of local entrepreneurs to tourism

markets is therefore a critical element for poverty alleviation (Ashley et al. 2000, 2001;

Goodwin 1998).

14

2.8 Pro-Poor Tourism Approaches within UNWTO Framework

According to UNWTO‘s pro-poor tourism mechanism, there are seven approaches

recommended for pro-poor tourism practices. (1) Employment of the poor in tourism

enterprises: this mechanism involves increasing the level of the poor in tourism workforce.

This could address poverty directly by enabling the poor to develop their own skills by

allowing for the possibility of a large number of people to benefit directly and raising the

standards of services. It is important that the provision of education and training is

strengthened so that the poor may respond to such opportunities, and any social or cultural

barriers are removed. (2) Supply of goods and services to tourism enterprises by the poor or

by enterprises employing the poor: one of the fundamental conditions to achieving poverty

reduction is in ensuring that goods and services in the tourism supply chain, as much as

possible, come from local resources at all stages. The objective would be to maximize the

proportion of tourism spending that is retained in local communities and to involve the poor

in the supply process. (3) Direct sales of goods and services to visitors by the poor (informal

economy): one of the main ways in which poor people seek to earn income from tourists is

through selling produce and services, such as fruits, vegetable, handicraft directly to them.

When visitors directly engage in this informal economy, it can be ideal in providing income

to the poor through their day by day expense. (4) Establishment and running of tourism

enterprises by the poor through micro, small and medium sized enterprises or community

based enterprises: this mechanism involves the establishment and management for more

formal tourism enterprises by the poor, either individually or at a community level. These

may include accommodation, catering, transportation… Local people have enough power to

control such enterprises and it is advantageous to reduce through their participation. (5) Tax

or levy on tourism income or profits with proceeds benefiting the poor: this aim at reducing

poverty through tax earned by national and local government. This also enables the poor who

15

indirectly involve in tourism benefit from such initiative. (6) Voluntary giving/support by

tourism enterprises and tourists: voluntary support in money or in kind by visitors or tourism

enterprises to the poor can act as influential drivers for local poverty reduction. Many tourists

are willing to donate something to the areas where they visit. (7) Investment in infrastructure

stimulated by tourism also benefiting the poor in the locality, directly or through support to

other sectors: Tourism development particularly in a new remote or rural area can include

investment in new infrastructure, such as roads, water and energy supply, sanitation and

communication. With careful planning, such infrastructure can also bring positive benefits to

the poor, by providing them with basic services and opening up new and faster routes to

access markets.

16

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Conceptual Framework

The idea about pro-poor tourism in food and beverage sector will be discussed in order to

establish a conceptual frame work for this study. It basically draws from 7 aspects of pro-

poor tourism mechanism recommended by UNWTO.

3.2. Analytical Framework

This study focuses on the expanding the poor‘s opportunities in tourism development.

Throughout this study, employment pattern of the poor, the access of the poor in tourism

activities will be explored with consultation from key actors in the sectors as well as

government policies.

Pro-poor

tourism

mechanism

Direct employment in tourism enterprises

Supply of goods/services to tourism enterprises by the poor

Direct sales of goods and services to visitors by the poor

Tourism enterprises run by the poor/community based tourism enterprises

Tax/levy on tourism income or profits with proceeds benefiting the poor

Voluntary giving/support by tourism enterprises and tourist

Investment in infrastructure that benefit the poor

17

3.3. Research Design

Primary Data Secondary

Data

Study Population

Siem Reap Town

Voluntary activities

by restaurant

enterprises to the

poor

Perception of

the owners on

the poor and

how they can

help in terms of

employment

Employment

characteristic and

micro and small

ventures by local

and poor people

Report, Journal,

Website

Pro-poor

tourism MSE

in food and

beverage

Tourism

development

Access of the poor

in tourism

employment in

Microand Small

restaurants

Voluntary activities

in the sector

Employment patter

of the poor in food

and beverage chain

18

The cross-sectional design is exercised in this study to obtain data. It is a one-time study and

best suited to the studies aimed at finding out the prevalence of a phenomenon, situation,

problems, attitude or issues, by taking a cross-section of population (Kumar, 1996). Both

quantitative and qualitative methods will be used in this study. The tool employed in this

study is semi-structure interview.

3.4. Sampling and Sample Size

This research study attempts to obtain information from restaurant operators in Siem Reap

province. Simple random sampling method is employed in this study to obtain the data from

micro and small restaurant operators. This sampling method allows each element in the

population to have an equal and independent chance of being selected. There two main

advantages of this sampling method – (1) it represents the total sampling population, so the

inferences drawn from the samples can be generalized to the total sampling population and

(2)some statistical tests based upon the theory of probability can be applied only to data

collected from random sample (Kumar, 1996).

The researcher uses Yamane formula to calculate sample size of the restaurant operators from

the total micro and small restaurant operators in Siem Reap. This formula is reliable up to

95% and the deviation factor is less than 10% (Israel, 1992)1. In addition to the study

purpose, three criteria is needed to determine the sample size – sampling error, confidence

level and the degree of validity in the attributes being measured (Miaoulis & Michener,

1976).

1 Glenn D. Israel, associate professor, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, and

extension specialist, Program Evaluation and Organizational Development, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), University of Florida, Gainesville 32611, retrieved 16 Feb, 2012 from

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pd006

19

n=N/ [1+N*e2]

Where

n= Sample size for this research

N= Number of small scale of restaurant

e= Level of precision (sampling error)

(90% confidence level and 10% sampling error were assumed)

3.5. Primary Data

Both quantitative and qualitative data will be collected to answer the research questions

above. Structured questionnaire is employed to obtain information form the micro and small

restaurants by using face-to-face interview. Restaurants which are considered MSE are

entirely based on a main criteria- number of employees which is less than 20.

3.6. Secondary Data

Researcher collects secondary data from journal, report and document from NGOs working

in tourism-related development project. There are some available documents from website

and the researcher also reviews prop-poor related concepts as well as MSEs and principles by

NGOs and practitioners having experiences related to the study.

3.7. Scope and Limitation of the Study

There are wide ranges of suppliers in tourism sectors. But due to the resource and time

constrains, this study was not attempt to cover all sectors. It focuses mainly on micro and

small food outlets in Siem Reap town, Siem Reap province. PPT is the main discussion

within this paper. However, researcher only focuses on the perceptions of the restaurants‘

20

owners on how they can diversity and offer more opportunities to those who they consider

poor. The challenges and opportunities are only analyzed on the basis of micro and small

food and beverage sectors with their employee‘s status.

3.8. Data Analysis Method

Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were utilized in this study. So two main

data analysis techniques were employed namely SPSS and Thematic Analysis. For

quantitative method, SPSS were used to analyze the data collected from questionnaire

through Descriptive Frequency, Cross-tabulation and Multiple responses. On the one side, for

qualitative analysis, Thematic Analysis were employed for analyzing the data obtained from

open question regarding the opinion from the restaurant owners/managers about the possible

interventions that enable the poor to get benefit from the development.

21

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Socio-Demographic of the Respondents

Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents are illustrated in the table 1. The gender

distribution of respondents is dominated by male (60.3%), while female only accounted for

39.7%. The entrepreneurs who are below 25 year-old is accounted for 1.4%, followed by

47.9% between 25 and 40 and slightly above 50% for 41 years and above. From third age

groups, it is highly likely that business are more stable and self-sustained and the

entrepreneurs are expanding their business size, recruiting more employees and participate

actively in business operation. Furthermore, the youngest age group tends to be more

ambitious and enthusiastic and they are keen to put more efforts to thrive their businesses. In

the meantime, the oldest age group also has major advantages too. They are experienced in

their restaurants operation and are likely to run new establishment for their children in other

locations. Regarding education level, majority of respondents are high school graduates

(46.6%), followed by university degree holders and secondary school graduates at 28.8% and

13.7% respectively. From this prospect, restaurant entrepreneurs are likely to thrive, because

of their high education levels. They have considerable ability to manage day-to-day

operation, treat customers and employees with good care. There are noticeable differences of

those who are originally from SR and other provinces. Owners from other provinces, in this

study, are better educated compared to the local owners. Entrepreneurs from other

geographical locations finished university and high school at 15% and 19% compared to local

entrepreneurs whose level of university and high school completion was at 6% and 15%

respectively. In addition, local entrepreneurs (39.7%) are as almost half as entrepreneurs who

22

are originated from outside provinces (60.3%). In this regards, local entrepreneurs, to some

extent, are dominated and invaded by migrated business people. This is chiefly due to the

inequality in education levels.

Table1: Socio-demographic of the respondent

Variable Categories Percentages

Gender

Male 60.3

Female 39.7

Age 25 year-old 1.4

25 – 40 47.9

41 year-old 50

Origin of resident Siem Reap 39.7

Other provinces 60.3

Education level Primary School 9.6

Secondary School 13.7

High School 46.6

Colleg/Vocational

Training

1.4

University or Higher 28.8

Duration of business

operation

3 year-old 1.4

4 – 9 year-old 47.9

50.7

Number of employees

23

Micro enterprises 1 – 4 employees 37

Small enterprises 5 – 19 employees 63

Type of venture Profit-making 96

Social enterprises/business 2.7

Registration Yes 70

No 30

N=73

Among the total respondents, the proportion of ―owner‖ is by far the highest among other

category, especially compared to ―manager‖ at 68.5% and 30.1% respectively. Micro and

small tourism enterprises in food and beverage sector are overwhelmingly dominated by

profit-making venture (almost 96%), while other types of venture such as social

enterprise/business only represent modest percentage at 2.7%.

The ages of their MSTEs vary accordingly. However, a study revealed that newly established

ventures aged 3-year-old and below occupy significant share at 58.9%, follow by medium-

term venture (aged from 4-9 years) and early established ventures (aged from 10 years and

above) at 27.4% and 13.7% respectively. A noticeable aspect of the first category (newly

established venture) is a considerable difference of owners‘ origin, where almost 60% are

from other regions whereas some 40% are local people. Despite new establishes are likely to

challenge with heavy operational cost, many new business opportunities attract new comers.

This is primarily caused by conductive small-scale business environment, supportive

government policies and on-going surge of demand side.

Because of its nature, MSTE requires limited investment and knowledge to start up.

Therefore, it is conductive for entrepreneurs who have small capital. It is revealed that

24

entrepreneurs who used own capital as source of establishment represent 75.3%, followed by

16.4% of those who shared capital with friends and relatives (figure 3).

Figure 3: Sources of capital

Some 70% among micro and small scale restaurants interviewed registered with concerned

authorities (table1), where 60% of registered ventures licensed by Siem Reap provincial

department of commerce, while another 33.8% licensed by Siem Reap provincial department

of tourism. The average license cost is USD 153 per annum.

4.2 Willingness to Support the Poor

According to Streen (2008), MSTEs are classified as sole operation, micro enterprise and

small scale enterprise. Based on this classification, the study shows that micro enterprises

occupy 37% whereas small scale enterprises share another 63%. In small enterprises, number

of female employees in average is almost as twice as number of male employees (5:3). In this

regards, female staff pay active roles in small scale restaurant enterprises. Like other sectors

such as accommodation, leisure and recreation, women play lead roles in services providing

and always have high profile of employability.

25

Wage is major incentive for employment. The average salary for the employees in MSTEs is

USD 102 per month. This is the major direct benefit that the poor can get from this small

scale development. The study reveals that the average income for those who work in micro-

enterprises is USD80, whereas the average wage for those who work in small enterprises is

USD115.

Table 2: Employees’ average salary (Micro and Small restaurant enterprises)

Type of business N Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Micro-enterprise 26 50 120 80 22.64

Small enterprise 46 60 180 115 32.44

Total 73 50 180 102 33.90

N=73

Beside monetary benefit, employees in MSTE are entitled other in-kind incentives, but it is

highly flexible from cases to cases. Some owners are more sympathy and treat staff with

better care. Despite relatively low income, employees, to some extent, are offered free

accommodation and meals. There is usually no clear procedure about the incentive

entitlement. Even so, more than half of respondents (55.7%) provide free medication to their

employees. This means that basic micro health insurant is covered by the employers.

Furthermore, regarding leave, more than half of employers (57% and 55%) entitle annual

holiday and holiday leaves to their staff. However, these types of entitlements are highly

flexible and informal. In regard to annual bonus, employees in SMTEs are expected to offer

bonus ranging from USD 20-30 each special event such as Khmer new-year, Chinese new-

year and Phnum Beng festival. Additionally, employees are provided informal training and

capacity building. Approximately half of enterprises interviewed are willing to provide on the

job training to their staff in order to improve service quality in their restaurants as well as to

equip their employees to have better opportunities such as pay rise and better paid-job. 81.4%

26

of total respondents develop tip box for their employees. From this kind of incentive,

employees who work in MSTEs are likely to earn extra income.

Table 3: Other incentive for staff in Micro and Small restaurant enterprises

No Item Responses Percent of

Cases

N Percent

1 Health insurance2 39 13.0% 55.7%

2 Annual leave3 40 13.3% 57.1%

3 Annual bonus4 37 12.3% 52.9%

4 Training and capacity

building

37 12.3% 52.9%

5 Overtime paid 34 11.3% 48.6%

6 Tip 57 18.9% 81.4%

7 Maternity leave5 18 6.0% 25.7%

8 Holiday leave 39 13.0% 55.7%

Total 301 100.0% 430.0%

(N=73)

2 Health insurance is the study only refer to very basic medication cost which covered by restaurant owners for

their staff.

3 Annual leave does not refer to the formal entitlement that staff should deserve. In the context of micro and

small tourism enterprise this term means the short duration that staff usually gets paid while leaving from work

for health reason or home visit.

4 Annual bonus is commonly the sum of extra money what owners give their staff during major festivals such

as Khmer or Chinese New Year and Phnum Benh festival. The total sum is usually between USD20-30.

5 Maternity leave is almost non-existence in micro and small restaurant operation. This is due to high turn-over.

The employees usually give up their work after marriage.

27

The majority of respondents (58.9%) prefer to hire local people for their business operation.

This is mainly due to the affordable labor and availability of workers. Some of them even

claim that local residents take leave shorter than those from other province, so employing

local has more advantages. People from Siem Reap are likely to be aware of tourims sectors

and hospitality industry. Low cost labor is major incentive that encourages owners to employ

local people.

The second preference (23.3%) does not care where the employees come from. Restaurant

entrepreneurs open equal opportunities for anyone who can provide labor. They only

prioritize whoever capable to serve the services in the restaurants. However, a noticeable

percentage of third type is given to priority to the poor both from Siem Reap and other

provinces of Cambodia. Entrepreneurs pay more attention to support the poor through

encouraging employability. Standing at only 15.1% of this category should be encouraged

because it should be the heart of tourism development in highly development destination.

Local poor people should be given special attention and strategize the development practices

to support the poor and vulnerable people so that they can, to some extent, take more

advantages from such developmental activities.

28

Table 4: who do you prefer to employ?

No

Who do you prefer to employ?

Item Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

1 Local people 43 58.9 58.9 58.9

2 People from

nearby province

2 2.7 2.7 61.6

3 People from all

over Cambodia

17 23.3 23.3 84.9

4 Poor people, both

locals and

Cambodians from

other provinces

11 15.1 15.1 100.0

Total 73 100.0 100.0

N=73

29

Due to its nature, MSTE mainly channel job announcement informally. Asking friends and/or

relatives is the prime source of job information access within this sector. This significance

stands at 63%, while second major source (43.8%) of information access that the employees

basically the poor can access such information is the information board which is usually

installed in front of the restaurant.

Table 5: Means of announcement

Mean of announcement

Responses Percent of

Cases N Percent

Announce

men

t

Through friends/relatives 46 51.7% 63.0%

Social Media 3 3.4% 4.1%

Media (TV, radio, newspaper...) 2 2.2% 2.7%

Employment agency 6 6.7% 8.2%

Post job announcement in front of

restaurant

32 36.0% 43.8%

Total 89 100.0% 121.9%

To some extent, the term ―poor‖ is totally contested concept and it is still skeptical how it is

defined. Many indicators are used to judge the level of poor the household belong to. These

include possession of land, livestock, housing condition, number of dependents, economic

shock, income, information access and debt. The study aims to understand the perception of

owner on the poverty, especially focusing on the employees who are currently working in

30

their restaurants. Many respondents (55.6%) argue that poor people can be defined as those

who have no land or have very little land. Furthermore, more that 40% of respondents agree

that people who belong to poor category are those who have no livestock, have too many

mouths to feed, have poor housing condition and earn less than USD2. In addition,

approximately 30% of respondents reveal that poor people are those who are in debt, have no

access to any information and have no capacity to work.

Table 6: Owners’ perception on “poor”

Based on the table 7, local entrepreneurs are willing to support poor through providing jobs,

purchasing products which are locally grown, providing tree training to the poor staff and

No Description Responses Percent of

Cases N Percent

1

Little or no land 40 15.3% 55.6%

2 Little or no livestock 35 13.4% 48.6%

3 Too many mouth to feed the family 30 11.5% 41.7%

4 Very poor quality housing 31 11.8% 43.1%

5 In ability to recover from economic

shock-harvest losses and serious

health problem

18 6.9% 25.0%

6 Income below 2USD 32 12.2% 44.4%

7 No access to information 21 8.0% 29.2%

8 No capacity at all 27 10.3% 37.5%

9 Debt 23 8.8% 31.9%

10 No job 5 1.9% 6.9%

Total 262 100.0% 363.9%

31

also willing to provide technical or fun support to the poor in order that they could provide

better products and services in return. Throughout these commitments, poor people are likely

to have better chances to improve their economic status. In the meantime, respondents

hesitate to acknowledge that tax levy they pay may benefit the poor in any form.

Furthermore, they are neutral when asked of they are willing to joint venture with the poor or

poor communities. This is primarily due to the lack of trust and confident. Also, the poor

might not be a good business partners or even retrogress the business operation if they are

working together. Even though some of owners contribute to the infrastructure development

and support the orphanage centers, the willingness to these to help the poor is still skeptical

from their own view.

Table 7: Willingness to support the poor

Item Min Max Mean Std.

Deviation

1 Provide employment to local poor 1.00 5.00 3.9863 .96455

2 Provide free training to local poor 1.00 5.00 3.3151 1.24585

3 Pay tax to the government 1.00 5.00 3.0685 1.18238

4 Purchase local products 1.00 5.00 3.7808 1.09604

5 Support poor to produce qualified

services/products (technical/fund)

1.00 5.00 3.4384 1.07995

6 Joint venture with poor

(community/cooperative/associati

on) for new establishment

1.00 5.00 2.9726 1.09256

7 Contribute to infrastructure

improvement /development

1.00 5.00 3.0274 1.07977

32

8 Donate to orphanage centers 1.00 5.00 3.0685 1.21711

9 Donate to conservation activities 1.00 5.00 2.9863 1.06057

N=73

4.3 The Challenges of the Poor and Prospective Return on Pro-Poor Business Practice

There are many issues that may hinder the poor from making the best use from tourism

development in Siem Reap even though they live close to the developmental areas. These

might include – networking, access to the employment, human resources – skills, knowledge,

ability to access information, and financial resources. However, in case of micro and small

tourism in restaurant sectors, respondents show that employee‘s level of knowledge is

somehow fine. Despite some employers complained that their staff do not demonstrate

enough knowledge and capacity, others tend to agree that micro and small restaurants do not

need high qualified staff. Because most of them are profit-oriented enterprises, they try to

minimize operational cost by employing low paid workers who usually have limited

knowledge and capacity. Furthermore, owners seem not to care much about the skills and

work experience of employees they recruit. This is because of simplicity of the micro and

small scare restaurant operations. Low skills employees are expected to build more during the

job training. Some employers are enthusiastic to train their staff because they wish to

improve their service quality. The poor, to some extent, are challenging with very limited

professionalism. Attitude is view as key issue for poor employees to access job because trust

among employees and employers is somehow limited. Networking and accessing to the

information are also constrains that hinder the poor from taking advantages from tourism

development. Due to high majority of enterprises advertise jobs by either installing

information board in front of their restaurants or by close relatives or friends, networking and

accessing information are crucial for the poor in terms of increasing employability rates.

33

Table 8: The challenges of the poor

Item Min Max Mean Std.

Deviation

1 Level of knowledge 1.00 5.00 3.0411 1.07288

2 Level of skills 2.00 5.00 3.4521 1.00057

3 Attitude 1.00 5.00 3.3425 1.04375

4 Capacity 1.00 5.00 3.2877 1.08627

5 Work experiences 1.00 5.00 3.3836 .96652

6 Trust 1.00 5.00 3.3836 1.07536

7 No networks 1.00 5.00 3.4658 1.14361

8 No access to

information

1.00 5.00 3.2466 1.15206

9 Time consuming for the

training to fit the job

1.00 5.00 3.1233 1.06647

10 Inability to access to the

financial benefit

1.00 5.00 3.4521 1.21382

11 Limited language skill 1.00 5.00 3.4384 1.14244

N=73

In the meantime of supporting the poor through providing employment, the enterprises are

expecting from being socially responsible practitioners. By doing so, some respondents

reveal that will have opportunity to build up their reputation in the market. In addition, they

34

are expecting chances to maximize their profit due to the increase of sale. Pro-poor inclusion

in their business is also the mean to reach charming business. By doing so, however, they do

not expect neither tax exemption nor fund support form NGOs or donor. They are rare and

unexpected cases.

Table 9: Return from pro-poor practices for venture themselves

Item Min Max Mean Std. Deviation

1 Standardize the service

and products

1.00 5.00 3.4384 1.01361

2 Fair trade business

(label)

1.00 5.00 3.2329 .97924

3 Charming market 1.00 5.00 3.4247 .86471

4 Tax exemption 1.00 5.00 2.7397 .94321

5 Fund from

NGOs/Donors

1.00 5.00 2.6575 1.19279

6 Opportunities to

maximize the benefits

1.00 5.00 3.4795 1.05554

7 Promote socially

responsible venture

1.00 5.00 3.3562 .94824

8 Marketing networks 1.00 5.00 3.3288 .97261

9 Increase volume of sale 1.00 5.00 3.5342 .95862

10 Gain reputation 1.00 5.00 3.5068 .94462

N=73

35

4.4 How Poor Can Access Better Output From the MSTE Development

Poor are disadvantageous group in gaining the benefit from the development projects. In

order to encourage the poor the get substantial benefit all key stakeholders should work

collaboratively together. In this regard, respondents contribute some so the kick-start solution

which keys actors should take into serious account for better pro-poor developmental scheme.

Mainstreaming pro-poor program for direct, indirect and induce impact to the poor household

is very challenging assignment. However, for the sake of poor who are expected to gain

benefits from the MSTE, entrepreneurs are willing to substantially support in terms of

employability. Not to mention about other prospective incentives, income from direct

employment is acknowledged as the immediate solution to mitigate the vulnerability of the

poor. In order to maximize the chances employees themselves should be more self-confident

and enthusiastic and work hard. Attitude is key factors that majority of entrepreneurs take

serious attention. From the perspective of the owners, poor‘s attitude is determinant factors

whether they are able to graduate from the poor status. Being patient and hardworking is very

essential for long-term employability. “If they strive for themselves, others are keen to help”

a 52 year-old woman who is the owner of restaurant near central market in Siem Reap town

said. Likewise, some owners more focus on the knowledge, skills and capacity of their

employees. Although micro and small restaurant enterprises are not picky in terms of

employees‘ qualification, some respondents demonstrate that having suitable capacity enable

them to improve faster and able to search for better opportunities. In the meantime, capacity

building is scored the more important from owners‘ perspective. Thus, NGOs and

government should make more training and other capacity building activities wisely

accessible, especially free or low-cost training should be prioritized to the poor group. By

doing so, poor are likely to have better opportunities to engage in micro and small tourism

enterprises development. The capacity building should focus on the service operation in

36

micro and small scale restaurants which also include basic language skills. In addition, heavy

reliance on tourism development alone can shrink opportunities to gain benefit for the poor.

Alternative livelihood option should be attempted include but not limited to agriculture

sector. In addition to that, private sectors, especially micro and small scale restaurant

operators should expand employment opportunities which comply with the modest status and

capacity of the poor.

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Initially, this study aims to discover the characteristic of the micro and small scale restaurants

that employ the poor, constrains that obstruct poor from gaining the benefits from these small

scale businesses and the opportunities they can make to intensify the benefits. The result

consults the view on perception of the owners on how they take part in pro-poor practices and

also the involvement of other key stakeholders in mitigating the obstacles, especially the poor

themselves.

As indicated by Tourism and Leisure (2009), poor have limited opportunity to exercise their

potential in gaining benefit from tourism development. These constrains include but not

limited to poor networking, access to the information (employment information), skills,

knowledge, financial capital. It may be true to some extent. However, within micro and small

scales tourism enterprises, these constrains seem superficial. This may be due to the nature of

micro and small firms that are not usually picky in terms of employment qualification. Low-

profile and limited qualification are viewed as problem-free by the owners. In addition, the

study reveals that entrepreneurs are willing to support the poor through providing

employment, purchasing local products and even provide on the job training. In this regards,

they are expected to gain some potential returns such as improving reputation of business as

socially responsible practitioners.

37

CHAPTER 6

RECOMMENDATION

The pro-poor tourism MSE mechanism is implemented by certain tourism players and some

portion of the poor get benefit from such development; however, poor people are facing some

challenges that need to be addressed. To help make the tourism industry, especially the poor

who are employed within micro and small size restaurant enterprises, become more

economically beneficial, number of effective mechanisms and interventions should be taken

into serious account.

First of all, key stakeholders, especially MOLVT should work collaboratively with NGOs

and training centers to offer low-cost tourism related training to the poor. By doing so, they

are able to access better paid jobs and likely to entitle pay rise from the micro and small

restaurant they work for. Second, the RGC and the MoT and its line departments should

create and maintain tourism business enabling environment for micro and small scale tourism

enterprises which should focus more on career opportunities for the locals, as well as other

poor and vulnerable Cambodians. Third, the state and local governments, in close

collaboration with all concerned stakeholders, should provide more training and educational

opportunities for SR poor locals to enhance their skills, knowledge and experience. By doing

so, they are able to get better employment opportunity and likely to get pay rise. Fourthly, the

38

RGC and other related state actors should create more alternative opportunities for local

investment in order to reduce the expand opportunity for the poor to access either

employment and supply local products, while at the same time diversifying local economies

in the area. Next, the government and the MoT should invest more in the improvement of

infrastructural and superstructural services and facilities to support and promote tourism

development in SR.

39

REFERENCES

Ashley, C., Boyd, C. and Goodwin, H. (2000) Pro-Poor Tourism: Putting Poverty at the Heart

of the Tourism Agenda. Natural Resource Perspectives, Number 51. London:

Overseas Development Institute.

Ashley, C., Roe, D., and Goodwin, H. (2001) Pro-Poor Tourism Strategies: Making Tourism

Work for the Poor. Overseas Development Institute

Ganbold, B. (2008). Improving access to Finance for SME: International Good Experiences

and Lessons for Mongolia. (Research Paper No.438). Tokyo, Japan: Institute of

Development Economic.

Hing Vutha and Tuot Sokphally (2006-2008), Pro-poor Tourism, Siem Reap Case Study

(Cambodia: CDRI-CAS)

IFC-MPDF (2007), Siem Reap Value Chain Survey 2006-2007(Frederic Thomas:

International Corporation)

IFC-MPDF (2007), Cambodia Visitor Survey 2007(Frederic Thomas: International

Corporation)

Israel, G.D. (1992) Determining Sample Size. Agricultural Education and Communication

Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agriculture

Sciences, University of Florida. Retrieved 16 Feb, 2012, from

htt://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pd006

Kumar, R. (1996). Research Method Methodology. Sydney: Addision Wesley Longman

Australia Pty Limited.

MoT (2012), Tourism Statistic Report 2012, (Phnom Penh: Ministry of Tourism)

40

Siem Reap Tourism Department (2008) Siem Reap Tourism Industry – Listing of the

registered operators (night bars, guesthouses, hotels, massage centers, restaurants,

TA&TO) (Ministry of Tourism - Kingdom of Cambodia)

SME Sub-committee (2005). Small and Medium Enterprises Development Framework. RGC

Sterren, J. (2008). Financial Market, Microfinace and Tourism in Development Countries.

(Working Paper). NHTV Breda University of Applied Science.

UNWTO. (2001). the Mid-Term Comprehensive Global Review of the Program of Action for

the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001-2010. New York: World Tourism

Organization

World Bank and MoI (2009), Task 3.1: Preliminary Scoping of Existing Value Chains and

Opportunities for the Poor

World Bank and MoI (2009), Task 2.2: Assessment of Capacities and Constraints of the Poor

UNWTO (2005). Tourism, Microfinance and Poverty Alleviation. Madrid, Spain.

41

APPENDIX

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR OWNER OF RESTAURANT

Perceptions of Owners on Pro-Poor Micro and Small Tourism Enterprise Development

in Siem Reap: Challenges and Opportunities for the Poor in Micro and Small Food and

Beverage Value Chain.

Questionnaire # :……………………… Name of restaurant:………………………

Date of interview:……………………… Contact number:…………………..………

Part I: MSTE Profile

1. Name of respondent (if allowed)…………………………………….

2. Gender: Male Female

3. Level of education:

Primary School Secondary School

High School College/Vocational Training School

University or higher Other (Specify……………..)

4. What is your position in this restaurant?

Owner Manager

Other (Specify …………….)

5. Where are you originally from?

Siem Reap province Other province (Specify…………..)

42

6. How long have you been operating this restaurant? ……..……………………….years

7. What type of venture are you operating?

Profit-making Semi-profit making Not-for-profit making

Social enterprise / business Other (pleases specify……………)

8. What is the source of your capital?

Own capital Share with friends/relatives

Got loan from Bank/MFI Borrow from friends/relatives

NGOs/Donors Joint venture with national or

international partner (s)

Community cooperative Other sources (please specify…..)

9. Did you register your restaurant with relevant authorities? Yes No (if no, please

go to question 12)

10. Which institution did you register your business?

Siem Reap province department of tourism

Siem Reap province department of health

Siem Reap province department of commerce

Other (please specify……………….…………..)

11. How much did you pay for license per year? ……………………………………..USD

12. How many employees are currently working in your restaurant? …....................people

# of male staff…..…..………people # of female staff……...………….people

13. The origin of your staff?

Siem Reap ……………………person

Nearby provinces…………person (Specify province name: …………………)

Other (Specify…………….person)

43

14. What is the average wage of staff at your restaurant? …...………………USD/month

Senior staff ………………….…………….……………………….USD/month

Middle level……………………..…………………………………USD/month

Low level………………………...…………………………………USD/month

15. What are other incentives you offer to the staff?

No Item Yes No Specify

1 Health insurance

2 Annual leave

3 Annual bonus

4 Training and capacity

building

5 Overtime paid

6 Tip

7 Maternity leave

8 Holiday leave

9 Others

44

Part II: Challenges or Obstacle of MSTE

16. Who do you prefer to employ?

N

o

Description Reason

1 Local people ………………………………………….

2 People from nearby province ………………………………………….

3 People from all over Cambodia ………………………………………….

4 Poor people, both locals and

Cambodians from other provinces

………………………………………….

5 Other (please specify) ………………………………………….

17. Means of job announcement:

Through friends/relatives Social media (facebook, g+…)

Media (TV, radio, newspaper….) Employment agency

Other (please specify…………..)

18. How do you define the poor? (You can tick more than one)

Poor are those who:

□ Little or no land

□ Little or no livestock (large livestock)

□ Too many mouth to feed in the family

□ Very poor qualify housing

□ Inability to recover from economic shock-harvest losses and serious health problem

□ Income below USD 2

□ No access to information

□ No capacity at all

45

□ Debt

□ No job

Part 3: Contribution to the poor

19. Your willingness to support the poor through MSTE:

No Detail 1 2 3 4 5

1 Provide employment to local poor □ □ □ □ □

2 Provide free training to local poor staff □ □ □ □ □

3 Pay tax to the government □ □ □ □ □

4 Purchase local products □ □ □ □ □

5 Support poor to produce qualified services/products

(technical and fund)

□ □ □ □ □

6 Joint venture with poor (community / cooperative /

association) for new establishment

□ □ □ □ □

7 Contribute to infrastructure

improvement/development

□ □ □ □ □

8 Donate to orphanage centers □ □ □ □ □

9 Donate to conservation activities □ □ □ □ □

10 Others (…………………………………………) □ □ □ □ □

Note: 1 = Not willing at all, 2 = Slightly willing, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Willing, 5 = Strongly willing

46

20. What are the following you agree the challenges of the poor in accessing the benefit

from the development?

No Description 1 2 3 4 5

1 Level of knowledge

2 Level of skills

3 Attitude

4 Capacity

5 Work experience

6 Trust

7 No networks

8 No access to information

9 Time consuming for the training to fit the job

10 Inability to access to the financial benefit

11 Limited language skill

12 Others (specify: ………………………….)

Note: 1 = Not agree at all, 2 = Not agree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree

21. Opportunities for the venture itself (by supporting the poor initiative in your business,

what are the following you expect to return?) (You can tick more than one)

No Description 1 2 3 4 5

1 Standardize the services and products

2 Fair trade business (label)

3 Charming market

4 Tax exemption

5 Fund from NGOs/Donors

47

6 Opportunities to maximize the benefit

7 Promote socially responsible venture

8 Marketing networks

9 Increase volume of sale

10 Gain reputation

Note: 1 = Not acceptable at all, 2 = Not acceptable, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Acceptable, 5 = Strongly acceptable

22. What would you suggest to increase the opportunities for the poor to benefit from the

MSTE development?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………..……………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………..…………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………..…………………………………………………………………

……………...…………………………………………………………..………………

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Thank you for your cooperation