Fostering global citizenship through the microfinance-tourism nexus

Paper proposal for the conference“TOURISM EDUCATION FOR GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP:

Educating for lives of consequence”OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY, OXFORD, ENGLAND

April 13-16, 2013

Giang Phi1, Dianne Dredge1 and Michelle Whitford2

Tourism has increasingly been framed as a tool for educating global citizens (Hollinshead, 2009; Pritchard, Morgan, & Ateljevic, 2011). Responsible tourism practices in emerging economies have the capacity not only to increase inter-cultural awareness, tolerance and understanding but to also facilitate creative initiatives through which long term change can emerge. In a separate and parallel stream of research and practice, micro-finance has increasingly become a tool to assist the poor, particularly those considered ‘unbankable’, to develop entrepreneurial activities. Often, microfinance has been used to assist in the production of arts and crafts, food services and other products consumed within the tourism system, but beyond that, the nexus between tourism and micro-finance has not been explored in any depth. In particular, the literature that combines these two areas is sparse, with only a few early attempts mentioning the inducement of local tourism-based projects through micro-loans (Hoeve ten, 2009; UNWTO, 2005). These do not reflect what is happening in practice, with various cross-over activities between microfinance and tourism increasingly taking place, and which arguably have potential to educate not only travellers but also a range of stakeholders operating within the microfinance-tourism nexus about global citizenship. This paper aims to address the gap in the literature by examining the promotion of global citizenship through the microfinance-tourism nexus from a stakeholder perspective. We argue that while practice has led research in the area of micro-finance and tourism to date, there is a growing need to better understand the potential opportunities and constraints of fostering global citizenship in this field in order to inform future debates in both theory and practice.

______________________________

1 School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Southern Cross University, Gold Coast Campus, Australia2 Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Nathan Campus, Australia

1

Introduction

Throughout history, the linking of global citizenship and education has been well discussed including

Socrates’ ‘citizen of the world’ and the cosmopolitanism of Enlightenment philosophers. In the last

few decades, global citizenship has received renewed philosophical and practical interest (see e.g.,

(Davies, 2006; Green, 2012), and in this context tourism has been positioned as a tool to educate and

extend travellers’ awareness and understanding of global issues, and to promote tolerance and peace

(Pritchard, Morgan, & Ateljevic, 2011). The strengthening of global capitalism, recognition that

tourism is a truly global industry, and heightened awareness of social, environmental, political and

humanitarian responsibilities that government and tourism businesses have in achieving just and

sustainable development are key reasons why global citizenship, tourism and education are

increasingly linked (Balarin, 2011; Carter, 2001 ; Lyons et al., 2012; Munar, 2007). However beyond

this rhetoric, there has been limited theoretical or applied research that investigates relationships

between global citizenship, education and tourism and claims remain largely unsubstantiated. Thus,

our interest in this paper is to examine whether tourism can educate and thus help to promote the

values of global citizenship. And if so, where and how does learning take place? In particular, we

focus on a relatively new form of tourism, micro-finance tourism. Our aim is to explore the educative

potential of micro-finance tourism to promote global citizenship and to present a framework that can

guide future research.

To address this aim, the structure of this paper is as follows: The paper first provides readers with a

brief overview of microfinance and tourism, situated within the global poverty alleviation and global

citizenship context. Next, the landscape of microfinance-tourism nexus is discussed through the

examination of three cases. In this section, three vignettes are used to illustrate and provide more

insights into how global citizenship is being promoted through a diverse range of microfinance-

tourism activities. These vignettes are presented in a way to facilitate a cross-case synthesis. The

cross-case synthesis identifies key stakeholders in the microfinance-tourism nexus and the role and

educational possibilities of each stakeholder in global citizenship. This approach has been taken

because there are very few examples of micro-finance tourism, and this literature tends to be applied.

As a result, the paper relies on secondary data and sources drawn from both academic and practical

literature in an effort to build a conceptual framework for further research. Recommendations for

future practice and research are then proposed based on the outcomes of the discussion.

Tourism & global citizenship education

2

Contemporary meanings of global citizenship incorporate a call for citizens (i.e., the governments,

corporations and individuals that comprise civil society) to build awareness of their own and others’

role within an interconnected global context; to respect the values of others; to take responsibility for

their actions; and to take actions towards development outcomes that are socially, economically,

environmentally and politically just and sustainable (Lapayese, 2003; Shultz, 2007). Inextricably

interwoven within this discourse of global citizenship is the notion that a reflexive, engaged and

value-full education of civil society actors is vital to vibrant and empowered local communities

(Higgins-Desbiolles, Whyte, & Mian, 2012).

Tourism involves a wide range of civil society actors that shape how the phenomenon plays out as a

social activity, a business, an experience and as a development tool. At the macro level are

international players such as the World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO), the World Travel and Trade

Council (WTTC) and various transnational tourism corporations. At the meso level are national and

regional governments and at the micro level there are local communities where the supply-demand

transactions of tourism play out in the daily lives of individuals and communities (Telfer & Sharpley,

2008). All these stakeholders play diverse roles in shaping tourism, and in turn, determine tourism’s

economic, social-cultural, environmental and political benefits and impacts (Bianchi, 2002; Hall,

1994a; Theobald, 2005). However, discourses about the role of tourism in promoting global

citizenship have been explored mainly from tourists’ perspectives, i.e., to what extent does

participation in tourism change the way tourists view the world and their role in it (Lyons, Hanley,

Wearing, & Neil, 2012). Little attention has been given to exploring the potential roles and

contributions to global citizenship of other stakeholders.

Early research into tourism and global citizenship often focused on social-cultural impacts of tourism

through the host-guest relationships, making a number of positive claims regarding how tourism can

help to enhance international and cross-culture understanding between individuals and nations and in

turn, promote global harmony and peace (e.g., (Ketabi, 1996; Levy & Hawkins, 2010; Matthews,

2008). Along with the advancement of globalisation and global citizenship theories, there has been a

recent call in the tourism and post-colonialism literature to also explore the political/power

dimensions of travellers. For instance, Munar (2007, p.111) argued that: “A tourist without a political

dimension, without rights and duties, can never be the ground for sustainability. It is an issue that is

not only about conserving the environment or enhancing the local culture, but fighting for human

dignity”. This view is embedded within the transformational approach to globalisation, which realises

that “in both the North and South, there exists concentrations of wealth and power along with

increasing poverty and exclusion” (Shultz, 2007, p. 255). There is thus a growing global consensus for

citizens, regardless of their states and societies, to share the responsibility of actively creating and

enhancing global social justice through poverty alleviation and the improvement of the life

3

capabilities of the marginalised (McGrew, 2000). This global commitment is articulated by the

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a document signed by leaders and representatives of 189

nations in 2000, aiming to free people from extreme poverty and multiple deprivations by 2015

(United Nations, 2008). In this context, tourists are no longer seen as merely global consumers but

rather global citizens that have duties to follow the ethics of care and to fight for global concerns such

as global poverty and social injustice (Donyadide, 2010).

Tourists learn about global issues in a number of ways. First, many ‘ethical’ tourism products (see

e.g., have been created and one of the main objectives is to bring global concerns to the tourists’

attention. Volunteer tourism, which offers tourists the experience of becoming involved in a wide

range of developmental projects, is a good example. Second, there is rapid growth of many tourism

market niches, which sit under the banner of ‘reality tourism’ (e.g., slum tourism, dark tourism, war-

zone tourism), and which often expose tourists to the realities of extreme conditions like hunger and

war. Although the ethics of these niches are still open to much debate, supporters of reality tourism

claim that these tours can help “bridge divides, educate the traveller’s worldview, inspire action and

advocacy” (Sweeney, 2007, p. 1).

On the supply end of tourism, in recognition that inequity and lack of social justice still prevail in

tourism development after decades, there is also a call for a fundamental shift in tourism education.

The call is to shift the focus of graduates, tourism practitioners and industry leaders from only

thinking about managing tourism and addressing immediate issues that affect tourism businesses and

destinations to incorporate and address issues of intergenerational sustainability, equity,

empowerment and global responsibility (Sheldon, Fesenmaier, & Tribe, 2011). As part of this

movement, organisations within the tourism industry are often encouraged to apply the ‘stewardship’

concept. That is, instead of constantly seeking new destinations and leaving the previous destinations

behind in saturated (or declined) conditions, or just simply looking after the resources related to the

organisation’s tourism products, it is important for tourism stakeholders to cooperate to ensure that

tourism development assists in improving the welfare of the destination and its community as a social

whole (Hall, 1994b). In addition, during the last decade, encouragement has been given to innovative

approaches to tourism (e.g., pro-poor tourism, fair trade), which have aimed to “establish a direct link

between tourism and poverty alleviation and emphasize the voices and needs of the poor in tourism

development” (Zhao & Ritchie, 2007, p. 10). This ideological shift in tourism development provides

hope that the poor around the world will tangibly realise greater positive impacts from tourism.

However, even though global citizenship is receiving more attention in tourism, in many cases

tourism stakeholders still avoid acknowledging the downside of tourism and the need to think and act

ethically. For instance, assumptions that tourism development will automatically lead to

4

improvements in living standards and better quality of life for local people (Zeng, Carter, Lacy, &

Bauer, 2005), though increasingly questioned in the post-colonial literature (Christie, 2002; Sharpley

& Telfer, 2008) still dominate tourism discourses. As a result, while a large part of economic benefits

leak to foreign investors and/or the wealthier parts of the global society; the poor around the world,

who are most vulnerable and whose voices are often unheard, have to bear the costs of tourism

development (see e.g., (Reid, 2003; Scheyvens, 2002). Siem Reap, Cambodia is an oft-cited example.

Although well known as a popular tourist destination, more than half of the population of the Siem

Reap district still live below the poverty line, with 53% of the children malnourished (Doherty, 2010).

It is reported that most package tours in Siem Reap follow a specific itinerary designed by tour

operators and where tourists spend their time and money only at foreign-owned hotels, shops and

restaurants (Pleumarom, 2012). Another alarming trend is that many types of tourism products that

are touted as helping promote global citizenship to travellers and contribute to local communities’

development are increasingly being commodified and exploited by for-profit tourism companies.

Such is the case of volunteer tourism, where critics are voicing concerns that it “has moved away

from altruism and deeper into the domain of commercial profit” (Tomazos & Butler, 2009, p. 200).

The discourse surrounding ethical tourism is therefore often criticised as “promise without practice”

(Tribe, 2002). Clearly, there is a need for further research into how global citizenship can be promoted

more effectively as both a concept and action by and to, a wide range of stakeholders. In this next

section, we partly address this gap by exploring how various initiatives within the microfinance-

tourism nexus are being developed to educate stakeholders from different backgrounds about global

efforts for eradicating poverty and improving the capabilities of the marginalised. In order to

familiarise readers with the microfinance concept, the section will first begin with brief information

regarding microfinance as a catalyst for global poverty reduction and empowerment, before exploring

the microfinance-tourism nexus.

Deconstructing the microfinance-tourism nexus for global citizenship

There is little argument that over time, poverty has been one of the most significant and persistent

global concerns, and it is within this context that microfinance is increasingly used as a working

solution for global poverty alleviation. Modern microfinance started to attract the world’s attention in

the 1970s, with the pioneering and successful case of Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, which provided

microcredit to the rural poor without requiring any collateral (a compulsory condition of traditional

banks) (Grameen Bank, 2011). The founder of Grameen Bank, Professor Muhammad Yunus, believed

that charity would only increase the dependency of the poor on donations and welfare (Yunus, 2003).

On the other hand, microcredit, as well as other financial services situated under the umbrella of

microfinance (i.e., savings, insurance and funds transfer) arguably can “offer people necessary

initiatives and motivations to increase income through entrepreneurship, which in turn, not only

5

enables payment of debts but also breaks the poverty cycle” (Grameen Bank, 2011). Yunus’s idea is

conveyed simply by reversing Ragnar Nurkse's vicious circle of poverty of “Low income, low saving,

low investment, low income” into an expanding system of “low income, injection of credit,

investment, more income, more credit, more investment, more income” (Grameen Bank, 2013, p. 1).

In addition, by charging sufficient interest rates to cover the operating costs, Grameen Bank’s case

also proved that microfinance institutions have the potential to become self-sufficient. The Grameen

Bank model thus allows for the co-existence of social responsibility and financial interests (Helms,

2006).

Since then, microfinance quickly gained recognition as a viable tool to address economic participation

within the most marginalised and disempowered community members. It soon became a thriving

industry, attracting a wide array of stakeholders from not only public and private sectors but also the

aid community and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Even though no official study has been

taken to measure the scale of global microfinance, the Microcredit Summit Campaign estimated that

there were over 3,000 microfinance institutions in 2005, which served over 112 million people

worldwide (Magner, 2007). The significance of microfinance (especially microcredit) as a catalyst for

poverty reduction led to the year 2005 being declared by the UN as the International Year of

Microcredit. In the following year, Professor Yunus and the Grameen Bank were awarded the Nobel

Peace Prize for “their efforts to create economic and social development from below” (Prize, 2006, p.

1)

Tourism and microfinance are both global phenomena, yet research pertaining to the nexus between

these fields has been limited. In 2009, when researching the potential of linking microfinance and

tourism for sustainable community development in Sub-Saharan Africa, Hoeve ten (2009) also

encountered the same issue and claimed:

It is not clear why so little research has been carried out about the combination of microcredit

and tourism. Do researchers think it is not viable to combine these two possible ways for

poverty reduction or have they simply not thought of the combination as a possible means?

(Hoeve ten, 2009, p. 43).

To date, Hoeve ten’s thesis appears to be one of only three publications that attempt to combine

microfinance and tourism. All three publications (Hoeve ten, 2009; UNWTO, 2005; Van der Sterren,

2008) focused on the potential of microfinance (especially microcredit) to support tourism micro,

small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in overcoming the issue of lack of access to credit.

There is a broad range of tourism micro activities that can be supported through microcredit. These

can be directly within the tourism system such as bicycles rentals, restaurants, guesthouses or present

6

in sectors connected to tourism, such as agriculture or handicrafts. In lending support to the tourism

MSME sector, it is argued that the poor can benefit more from tourism development through: (1) the

employment of the poor in MSMEs; (2) the provision of goods and services by the poor to tourism

enterprises; and (3) the creation of small, local tourism operators amongst the poor. Together, the

three approaches can provide a set of practices enabling tourism MSMEs, and in turn the tourism

industry, to combat against global poverty (UNWTO, 2005). This way of combining microfinance

and tourism however, usually treats tourists as typical consumers, whose main contribution is to inject

revenue into local communities through the purchase of tourism products and services. Opportunities

to further educate tourists about issues of poverty, gender inequity, lack of access to education,

disempowerment and marginalisation and initiatives aimed at poverty alleviation are often carried out

in the background.

In contrast to academia’s apparent lack of research in the microfinance-tourism nexus, what happens

in practice is encouraging. A plethora of cross-over activities between microfinance and tourism,

many of which are designed to directly involve stakeholders in poverty alleviation activities, have

emerged and have been increasingly reported in media, including travellers’ online communities. The

following section will discuss the microfinance-tourism landscape within the global citizenship

context with three main types of microfinance-tourism hybrids:

1. Microfinance and volunteer tourism

2. Microfinance and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in tourism industry

3. Microfinance tourism (MFT)

Microfinance and volunteer tourism

Volunteer tourism is described as ‘a combination of development work, education and tourism’

(Keese, 2011, p. 258). Grown out of NGOs’ needs for volunteers to assist with development projects

in developing countries, volunteer tourism deliberately focuses on what tourists can do to support the

host communities (Wearing, 2001). The increase in popularity of volunteer tourism in the last decade

is thus said to represent ‘the shift towards more responsible forms of tourism and an increasing sense

of global citizenry’ (Raymond, 2007, p. 2). Given that the majority of volun-tourists are involved in

activities which aim to alleviate poverty and develop local areas, microfinance and volunteer tourism

appear to be a natural match. Indeed, a quick search of the key word “microfinance volunteer

opportunities” on Google search engine in January 2013 yielded more than 200,000 results. The

following case helps to explore the microfinance-volunteer tourism nexus in more detail.

Case 1: The ‘Bankers without Borders’ initiative

Despite microfinance’s rapid growth, it is estimated that only US$25 billion in microfinance loans are

currently provided, a modest number compared to the estimated US$250 billion which is required to

7

meet the demands of the poor (Dieckman, 2007). At the same time, MFIs face constant internal

operational challenges such as financial management, corporate governance, technology and human

resources. The MFIs also often lack essential knowledge of best practices to survive and serve the

poor more effectively (Schreiner, 2000). Externally, it has been found that poor entrepreneurs need

more than just credit; they also need training in business skills, market knowledge and continuous

mentoring to reduce their failure rates (UNWTO, 2005). This leads to the situation where, if more

financial resources are put into improving the organisations’ internal capabilities (e.g., employing

skilled workers, training MFI staffs, developing technology) and providing technical assistant to poor

clients, then less credit would be available to serve more people or an increase in interest rates would

be applied to cover the operational costs.

It is within this context that Bankers without Borders (BwB), a skill-based volunteer, Grameen

Foundation initiative was established in late 2008. BwB is a US-based non-profit organisation that

provides support to MFIs around the world. Using the slogan “Connecting skills, passion and

resources to fight global poverty”, BwB targets and ultilises skilled volunteers to provide MFIs and

other pro-poor organisations with affordable human resources, technical assistant and advisory

services. These volunteers register privately through the main website or through BwB’s extensive

network of partners, which include many Fortune 500 and smaller companies, government

organisations, trade associations, and leading universities (BwB, 2013). In 2012, BwB has cultivated a

global reserve of volunteer corps of more than 9,000 skilled professionals, providing support in

Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa region. Unlike the

initiative’s name, these volunteers are not necessarily bankers but come from diverse professional

backgrounds and possess diverse sets of skills and experience (Mosaic Plus, 2012).

Volunteers are placed on short-term projects ranging from a few weeks to a few months. The projects

are developed by the client MFIs to fill their specific needs, which in turn help to increase the scale,

sustainability and impacts of their programs. About half of all BwB projects have an ‘on the ground’

component, where volunteers spend part of their time working in the client organisation’s office,

witnessing first-hand, the impacts of microfinance on the local poor (Mosaic Plus, 2012). Feedback

from the volunteers regarding field-based engagements has been positive. Jess Watje, a Best Buy

employee, who spent three months volunteering on the ‘Human Capital Management Assessment

Tool Pilot’ project in Nigeria commented (Watje, 2013, p. 1):

These experiences have opened up my perspective on how organizations and individuals can

actually make a sustainable global impact by investing in the poor. I'm back in my day job at

Best Buy with a belief in the mutual benefits of partnerships, a renewed appreciation of the

power of people and a deeper sense of responsibility for the impact we all have on the world.

8

With the capacity to secure continuous grant support from JPMorgan Chase Foundation, BwB is now

in the process of expanding to become truly borderless. “We believe there’s an opportunity for

everyone to use their skills—skillanthropy—and get involved in the movement to end global

poverty”, said BwB Director Shannon Maynard (Mosaic Plus, 2012, p. 1).

Microfinance and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in tourism industry

CSR is the notion that corporations have “an obligation to constituent groups and society other than

stockholders and beyond that prescribed by law and union contract” (Jones, 1980, p. 59). The CSR

concept is especially relevant to the tourism industry, as tourism products built by companies within

the industry are based upon a range of local resources (e.g., culture, environment) and affect the

destination on many levels. Since poverty alleviation emerged as a focus on the global tourism agenda

in early 2000s, the private sector within the industry has been recognised as a key player in improving

livelihoods of the poor on a large-scale, and is thus under increased pressure to more effectively

exercise the social arm of CSR (Ashley & Roe, 2003; Chafe, 2005). It is within this context that

tourism CSR and microfinance intersect via a number of CSR practices.

While a number of organisations still use the traditional philanthropic donation approach (e.g.,

OneSeed Expeditions provides adventure trips in Nepal and Chile and they commit to ‘invest 10 cents

of every dollar into microfinance initiatives’) (Oneseed Expeditions, 2013), the widespread use of the

internet globally has opened up new possibilities for companies in the tourism industry to partner with

the microfinance sector to educate travellers about global citizenship, as illustrated in Case 2.

Case 2: The Tripadvisor and Kiva Partnership

TripAdvisor Inc. manages a number of branded travel websites, which altogether make up the largest

travel community in the world, with more than 60 million unique visitors per month (Newton, 2012).

A common thing that the Tripadvisor travel community often encounters is that they enjoy the

experience but do not know how to give back to the community in a meaningful way. “Travellers to

developing countries often feel like they want to do more. They enjoy the hotels and the food but

realize folks in that country need more than a smile, they need resources”, said Barbara Messing -

TripAdvisor Chief Marketing Officer (Grant, 2012, p. 1). In response to this issue, a unique

partnership between TripAdvisor and Kiva - the world’s largest online microlending platform

(http://www.kiva.org/) was announced in December 2012.

The partnership aims to combine the power of TripAdvisor’s crowdsourcing and Kiva’s crowd

funding to make meaningful change to the lives of the poor on a global scale. Premal Shah, the

9

President of Kiva stated: “As global citizens none of us are visitors, we are all connected. Nothing

makes this more clear than when we travel. Through this partnership, the affinity you develop for the

people and places you visit can continue when you return home” (Newton, 2012, p. 1). Under the

Tripadvisor – Kiva partnership, supporting microfinance activities at the destination is promoted as a

meaningful way of encouraging travellers to make a difference to local communities. In particular, a

traveller who has been to a KIVA-supported country and written a review about that trip on

TripAdvisor, would be given US$25 to support a KIVA borrower of their choice from the same

country. With the initial fund of US$250,000 from TripAdvisor, the first phase of the partnership aims

to educate at least 10,000 travellers about how they can directly contribute to the fight against global

poverty (Newton, 2012).

Microfinance tourism (MFT)

The practice of travelling and engaging in microfinance activities is not new, given that modern

microfinance has been around since the 1970s. Besides seeing increased encouragement for

volunteers to assist in the field, the last few decades have also witnessed an increase in the number of

microfinance tours, developed within the microfinance network to promote the exchange of practical

poverty alleviation knowledge to students, microfinance practitioners and occasionally, microfinance

donors/supporters. Such an educational tour (often to Bangladesh – home of the Grameen Bank)

typically lasts a few days to a few weeks, featuring training and workshops at the microfinance

institution’s office and visits to microfinance clients in the field. These tours however, are quite scarce

and only cater to those who are already familiar with the microfinance concept. It was not until 2007

that the idea of developing microfinance practices into a tourism product was officially proposed by

Trip Sweeney. Serving the growing responsible tourist segment, MFT has emerged as a promising

niche within the tourism industry, helping to promote microfinance and global citizenship to a much

larger group of travellers.

Case 3: Investours

Investours is a non-profit organisation, founded by Kaja - a Harvard student and Topete, the director

of a Spanish language institute in Oaxaca. The establishment of Investours was inspired by the

original idea of Trip Sweeney, aiming to combine microfinance and tourism for educational and

fundraising purposes (Investours, 2013b). Investours’ motto is to “educate(s) and mobilize(s)

travellers and micro-entrepreneurs across the world to reshape educational tourism and the global

fight against poverty” (Investours, 2013a, p. 1)

Under the original MFT model, tourists can experience microfinance in action by paying a visit to a

small group of local entrepreneurs operating in their daily environment. On the trip, they will also

learn more about microfinance and how the funds raised by their travel expenditures can be used in

10

microfinance activities to help improve these entrepreneurs’ lives (Sweeney, 2007). Investours ran a

pilot project using this model in Mexico from 2009 – 2010 and was able to raise sufficient funds to

provide interest free micro-loans to over 120 entrepreneurs (Sherry, 2010). In addition, travellers in

the pilot are able to track the loan progress online and continue their support and connection with the

local poor after the trip.

The introduction of MFT by Investours has received enthusiastic acceptance from local, international

media and travellers alike. Reviews on TripAdvisor website currently show that microfinance tours

run by Investours, in partnership with local MFIs, are currently ranked eighth position in activities to

do in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico and second position in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (Tripadvisor, 2013a

2013b, 2013c). Investours is now in the process of establishing partnerships with MFIs around the

world with the aim of bringing MFT to more countries.

Cross-cases synthesis

The above three cases reveal a range of direct microfinance-tourism stakeholders involved in the

global citizenship education context. Table 1 summaries the stakeholders:

11

Table 1: Microfinance-tourism stakeholders

Case StakeholdersBwB Initiative - Volunteer sending organisations (Grameen Foundation)

- Corporations as volunteer providers (Fortune 500 and smaller companies, government organisations, trade associations, and universities)

- Microfinance-Volun-tourists (Skilled Professionals)- MFIs as Volunteer host organisations- Poor entrepreneurs - End beneficiaries

The Tripadvisor - Kiva Partnership

- Corporations within tourism industry as donors/educators (Tripadvisor)- Microfinance fundraisers (KIVA – crowd-funding platform)- Tourists (Tripadvisor reviewers)- MFIs as coordinators between other stakeholders and entrepreneurs- Poor entrepreneurs - End beneficiaries

Investours - Microfinance tour providers (Investours)- Microfinance tourists - MFIs as coordinators between microfinance tour providers and

entrepreneurs- Poor entrepreneurs (Service suppliers and end beneficiaries)

Volunteer sending organisations (case 1), Microfinance fundraisers (case 2) and Microfinance

tour providers (case 3) are the three most active promoters of the global citizenship concept within

the case studies described above. These stakeholders actively seek to connect other stakeholders in the

global fight against poverty through: (1) expanding the network of global-local partners; and (2)

developing products/services/initiatives which aim to educate people about global citizenship and the

meaningful ways they can contribute to change the lives of the poor.

Corporations – In the BwB initiative case, the concept of global citizenry was promoted to a range of

corporations by the volunteer sending organisation – Grameen Foundation. In particular, the corporate

partners are said to better fulfil their CSR role by allowing their staff to assist MFIs and the poor

around the world in the volunteer movement. To the contrary, in the second case, corporations in the

tourism industry play the role of the educators as part of their CSR schemes, whereby tourists learn

about global responsibility through the corporations’ partnership and initiatives jointly developed with

MFIs/microfinance fundraisers. As the tourism industry is still well behind other industries in terms

of CSR (Mowforth & Munt, 2003) and the private sector is still more familiar with environmental

issues rather than poverty alleviation (Ashley & Roe, 2003), the pioneering efforts by these

companies might serve to educate and encourage other tourism businesses to become involved in

activities that help to alleviate poverty and enhance social justice.

MFIs appear across all three cases, stressing the important role they place in fostering global

citizenship. In the first case, MFIs act as the volunteer host organisation. The MFIs’ mission, culture

and staff therefore, often have a strong influence on shaping volunteers’ experiences and the

knowledge of global citizenship acquired. For instance, the ethics of care would be shown and

12

encouraged more clearly in MFIs where a social mission takes higher priority (i.e., non-profit

organisations, non-governmental organisations, public entities) than in MFIs that focus more on a

financial mission (i.e., cooperatives and private companies) (Lapenu & Pierret, 2006). In the second

case, MFIs are seen as an important catalyst, helping to establish and maintain relationships between

travellers/donors and their client entrepreneurs, both online and when travellers visit the destination.

In the third case, MFIs act as coordinators between microfinance tour providers and entrepreneurs,

where microfinance officers collect and provide information of potential/existing clients to

microfinance tour providers to help design the educational tours more effectively.

Poor entrepreneurs also act as educators within the global citizenship context. Through

microfinance activities, impoverished communities are not show-cased and exploited under the guise

of tourism (e.g., slum tourism). Rather, travellers are exposed to poor entrepreneurs’ struggles and

aspirations for a better life and in many instances, travellers experience first-hand, the value of

“empowerment and progress” (Sweeney, 2007, p.1) This experience has potential to help raise

awareness of, and commitment to, combating existing unequal power relations and the root causes of

poverty (Devereux, 2008).

Tourists are viewed in all case studies as the main recipients of global citizenship education. Overall,

the promotion of microfinance to travellers captures the new trend in the tourism market, which is

seeing a steady rise in the number of responsible tourists who are increasingly displaying ethical

consumerism (Butcher, 2003). However, the educational approaches tend to differ in each case to

target different types of tourists. Microfinance tourists are defined as those who participate in

microfinance activities when they travel. Active microfinance tourists are those whose main purpose

of travelling relates to microfinance (e.g., microfinance-voluntourists). As such, these tourists might

already be familiar with the idea of global citizenship and poverty alleviation. Therefore, what needs

to be provided is an in-depth ‘on-the-ground’ experience for them to witness and become immersed in

microfinance in action. In contrast, passive microfinance tourists travel for other purposes and often

only make the decision to join a microfinance tour after arriving at the destination. More information

about local and global poverty problems and microfinance as a working solution to these problems

should be integrated into the tour. As a microfinance tour is also much shorter, it needs to be carefully

designed in order to better convey the educational message to tourists within the limited time-frame.

Besides microfinance tourists, there are also efforts to promote microfinance and global poverty

alleviation to the broader community of travellers as illustrated in the case of TripAdvisor-Kiva

partnership. Being equipped with this kind of knowledge might motivate these travellers to become

more involved in microfinance activities in their next travel experience.

13

Figure 1 presents the above discussion in a visual format, identifying both the stakeholders and the

various roles they play in the case studies presented above. In this framework, it is possible that

stakeholders play multiple roles. This figure provides an overview of the landscape drawing from

applied projects and provides a launching point for further research as detailed in the conclusions.

Figure 1 Stakeholders and their roles in the microfinance-tourism nexus

It is noted that all stakeholders in the framework can be and are impacted upon, to varying degrees, by

‘the government’. For instance, governments at a higher level can act as a regulator to both

microfinance and tourism sectors; a coordinator/promoter to bring microfinance and tourism together,

and at times, a direct player through their public MFIs/tourism organisations. However, the roles that

governments play in promoting global citizenship are seen as indirect in the above case studies and

thus are not included in the framework.

Conclusions & Recommendations

This paper has sought to explore the various ways that stakeholders with an interest in microfinance

and tourism can join forces in promoting global citizenship. Discussions of three main types of

microfinance and tourism hybrids identified in the applied literature reveal that the education of

14

CSR

Relationship building with the poor

Tourism product development

Networking & leveraging partners

Staff participation in programs

Education for global

citizenship

Microfinance products &

services

Poor Entrepreneurs Corporations

Microfinance tour

operators

Mic

rofin

ance

inst

itutio

ns

Microfinance sending organisations

Microfi

nanc

e

fundr

aiser

s

Tourists

GlobalCitizenship

in Microfinance

Tourism

STAKEHOLDERS

ROLES

actions for change is initiated from a wide range of stakeholders. For instance, the intervention can be

led by ogranisations operating within the microfinance sector to meet the sectors’ labour needs, as in

the BwB initiative case. In the case of tourism CSR, pressure from NGOs, international

organisations, tourists’ demand for responsible practices, and various pro-poor researchers and

practitioners, have motivated the tourism private sector to put more effort into improving the

livelihoods of the poor through a number of strategies, including promoting the microfinance and

global citizenship concept to the travellers’ community (e.g., the TripAdvisor-Kiva partnership).

Finally, the emergence of the microfinance tourism niche has proven that an innovative idea to

educate tourists and simultaneously contribute to the local community’s poverty alleviation can be

turned into reality through a grass-roots movement, even with minimal resources, as in the case of

Investours.

Across the globe, actions created within the microfinance - tourism nexus have brought together a

significant number of people in the fight to end mass poverty and social injustice. However, a number

of potential problems cannot be ignored. First, the dynamic of partnerships between a large number

of stakeholders from both tourism and the microfinance sector can manifest potential problems. For

instance, the issue of irresponsible lending practices in the microfinance sector is not uncommon and

companies within the tourism sector need be careful as to which MFIs to partner with. Likewise, there

is a strong possibility that many organisations and tourism products within the tourism sector may

succumb to commercial interests in favour of social justice and equity. In addition to the issue of trust,

both the microfinance and tourism stakeholders still lack essential knowledge of each other’s sector,

which in turn creates problems in communication and inhibits the development of new ideas that may

further enhance and expand the nexus. In moving forward, it is important for tourism and

microfinance stakeholders to develop a deeper understanding of each other’s roles, motivations and

potential contributions in order to develop appropriate educational strategies.

To conclude, while the micro-finance-tourism nexus discussed in this paper are by no means

exhaustive, the paper has helped to shed light on the gap between microfinance-tourism literature and

practice. Figure 1 provides a potential framework for future research. More efforts are still needed to

further enhance and expand the nexus to foster global citizenship on a larger scale. Future research

can focus on exploring each type of microfinance-tourism hybrid or the microfinance-tourism nexus

as a whole. In particular, policy guidance for the planning and management of the cross-over activities

is useful to help improve their effectiveness in global citizenship education and poverty reduction.

The practical applicability of this paper lies in the knowledge that it raises awareness on

microfinance-tourism within a global citizenship and poverty alleviation context.

15

References

Ashley, C., & Roe, D. (2003). Working with the Private Sector on Pro-Poor Tourism: Overseas Development Institute.

Balarin, M. (2011). Global Citizenship and Marginalisation: Contributions towards a Political Economy of Global Citizenship. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3-4), 355-366.

Bianchi, R. (2002). Towards a new political economy of tourism. In R. Sharpley & D. Telfer (Eds.), Tourism and development: Concepts and issues (pp. 265-297). Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.

Butcher, R. (2003). The moralisation of tourism: Sun, sand... and saving the world? London, UK: Routledge.

BwB. (2013). Bankers without Borders - A Grameen Foundation Initiative Retrieved 1 February, 2013, from http://www.bankerswithoutborders.com/

Carter, A. (2001). Political theory of global citizenship (Vol. 7). London: Routledge.Chafe, Z. (2005). Consumer Demand and Operator Support for Socially and Environmentally

Responsible Tourism: Center on Ecotourism and Sustainable Development (CESD)The International Ecotourism Society (TIES).Christie, I. T. (2002). Tourism, growth and poverty: Framework conditions for tourism in developing

counties. Tourism Review, 57(1/4), 35-41. Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: abstraction or framework for action? Educational Review,

58(1), 5-25. doi: 10.1080/00131910500352523Devereux, P. (2008). International Volunteering for Development and Sustainability: outdated

paternalism or a radical response to globalisation? Development in Practice, 18(3). Dieckman, R. (2007). Microfinance: An emerging investment opportunity. Frankfurt: Deutsche Bank

Research.Doherty, B. (2010, 27 September). Angkor butterfly hunters tell of poverty amid tourist wealth, The

Guardian. Donyadide, A. (2010). Ethics in Tourism. European Journal of Social Sciences, 17(3), 426 - 433. Gordon, G., & Townsend, C. (2001). Tourism - putting ethics into practice. In G. Gordon (Ed.):

Tearfund.Grameen Bank. (2011). What is microcredit? Retrieved 15 February, 2013, from

http://www.grameen-info.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=108

Grameen Bank. (2013). A Short History of Grameen Bank Retrieved 1 February, 2013, from http://www.grameen-info.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=114

Grant, R. (2012). TripAdvisor, Kiva to fund ‘hopes and dreams’ of world’s entrepreneurs Retrieved 21 February, 2013, from http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/04/tripadvisor-and-kiva-partnership-will-fund-hopes-and-dreams-of-the-worlds-entrepreneurs/

Green, M. F. (2012). Global Citizenship: What Are We Talking About and Why Does It Matter? International Educator, 21(3), 124-127.

Hall, C. M. (1994a). Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. New York, US: Wiley and Sons.Hall, C. M. (1994b). Tourism, culture and social reality. In C. M. Hall (Ed.), Tourism and politics:

Policy, power and place. New York: Wiley and Sons.Helms, B. (2006). Access for All: Building Inclusive Financial Systems. Washington DC: World

Bank.Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Whyte, K. P., & Mian, A. (2012). Abandon hope: The importance of

remaining critical. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual CAUTHE conference, Melbourne. Hoeve ten, M. (2009). Tourism and microcredit for sustainable community development in Sub-

Saharan Africa. University of Groningen. Retrieved from http://irs.ub.rug.nl/dbi/4a894b953281d

Hollinshead, K. (2009). The "Worldmaking" Prodigy of Tourism: The Reach and Power of Tourism in the Dynamics of Change and Transformation. Tourism Analysis, 14(1), 139-152.

Investours. (2013a). Organization and Mission Retrieved 14 February, 2013, from http://investours.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=11

16

Investours. (2013b). Our team Retrieved 10 February, 2013, from http://investours.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=10

Jones, T. M. (1980). Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management Review, 22(3), 59-67.

Keese, J. R. (2011). The Geography of Volunteer Tourism: Place Matters. Tourism Geographies, 13(2), 257-279.

Ketabi, M. (1996). The Socio-Economic, Political and Cultural Impacts of Tourism. In M. Robinson, N. Evans & P. Callaghan (Eds.), Tourism and Cultural Change (pp. 155). Sunderland: British Educational Publishers.

Lapayese, Y. V. (2003). Toward a Critical Global Citizenship Education. Comparative Education Review, 47(4), 493-501.

Lapenu, C., & Pierret, D. (2006). Handbook for the analysis of the governance of microfinance institutions: IFAD.

Levy, S. E., & Hawkins, D. E. (2010). Peace Through Tourism: Commerce Based Principles and Practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 569 - 585.

Lyons, K., Hanley, J., Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (2012). Gap year volunteer tourism: Myths of Global Citizenship? Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 361-378. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.04.016

Magner, M. (2007). Microfinance: A Platform for Social Change. Matthews, A. (2008). Negotiated selves: Exploring the impact of local-global interactions on young

volunteer travellers. In K. D. Lyons & S. Wearing (Eds.), Journeys of discovery in volunteer tourism: International case study perspectives (pp. 101 - 129). Wallingford, UK: CABI.

McGrew, A. (2000). Sustainable globalization? The global politics of development and exclusion in the new world order. In T. Allen & A. Thomas (Eds.), Poverty and development into the 21st century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, in association with the Open University, Milton Keynes.

Mosaic Plus. (2012). Career & Volunteering: Interview with Banker without Borders Retrieved 15 February, 2013, from http://www.wbfn.org/Mosaic/Mosaic-FY13/September-2012/2-c&v-09-12.html

Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2003). Tourism and Sustainability. New Tourism in the Third World. London: Routledge.

Munar, A. M. (2007). RETHINKING GLOBALIZATION THEORY IN TOURISM. [Article]. Tourism Culture & Communication, 7(2), 99-115.

Newton, M. (2012). TripAdvisor and Kiva Launch Partnership Retrieved 14 February, 2013, from http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/PressCenter-i5593-c1-Press_Releases.html

Oneseed Expeditions. (2013). Oneseed expeditions: Exploring the world. Investing in people Retrieved 12 February, 2013, from http://oneseedexpeditions.com/

Pleumarom, A. (2012). The politics of tourism and poverty reduction. In D. Leslie (Ed.), Responsible Tourism: concepts, theory and practice. UK: CABI.

Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., & Ateljevic, I. (2011). Hopeful tourism: A New Transformative Perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 941-963. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.01.004

Prize, N. (2006). The Nobel Peace Prize 2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank Retrieved 12 February, 2013, from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/

Raymond, E. M. (2007). Volunteer Tourism in New Zealand: The role of sending organisations in ensuring that volunteer tourism programmes ‘make a difference’: University of Otago.

Reid, D. G. (2003). Tourism, Globalization and Development: Responsible Tourism Planning. London: Pluto Press.

Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourism for Development: Empowering Communities. Harlow: Prentice Hall.Schreiner, M. (2000). Ways Donors Can Help the Evolution of Sustainable Microfinance

Organizations. Savings and Development, 24(4), 423 - 437. Sharpley, R., & Telfer, D. (Eds.). (2008). Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues. Clevedon,

UK: Channel View Publications.

17

Sheldon, P. J., Fesenmaier, D. R., & Tribe, J. (2011). The Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI): Activating Change in Tourism Education. [Article]. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 11(1), 2-23. doi: 10.1080/15313220.2011.548728

Sherry, A. (2010, 21 April). Microfinance startup lets tourists fund Oaxaca-area artisans, The Denver Post.

Shultz, L. (2007). Educating for Global Citizenship: Conflicting Agendas and Understandings. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(3), 248-258.

Sweeney, T. (2007). Why We Need Micro Loans Instead Of Slum Tourism Retrieved 1 February, 2013, from http://matadornetwork.com/bnt/why-we-need-micro-loans-instead-of-slum-tourism/

Telfer, D., & Sharpley, R. (2008). Globalisation and tourism Tourism and development in the developing world (pp. 57-79). New York, US: Routledge.

Theobald, W. (Ed.). (2005). Global Tourism: The Next Decade (3rd ed.). New York, US: Elsevier.Tomazos, K., & Butler, R. (2009). Volunteer Tourism: The New Ecotourism? . Anatolia: An

International Journal of Tourism of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(1), 196-211. Tribe, J. (2002). Education for ethical tourism action. Journal of Sustainable Tourism & Hospitality

Research, 10(4), 309-324. Tripadvisor. (2013a). Fundacion En Via: Traveller Reviews, from

http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/ShowUserReviews-g150801-d1767193-r136142345-Fundacion_En_Via-Oaxaca_Southern_Mexico.html

Tripadvisor. (2013b). Investours: Dar es Salaam, from http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Attraction_Review-g293748-d2193163-Reviews-Investours-Dar_es_Salaam_Dar_Es_Salaam_Region.html

Tripadvisor. (2013c). Investours: Puerto Vallarta, from http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Attraction_Review-g150793-d2098199-Reviews-Investours-Puerto_Vallarta_Pacific_Coast.html

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

Van der Sterren. (2008). Financial Markets, Microfinance and Tourism in Developing Countries: NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences.

Watje, J. (2013). Human Capital Management Assessment Tool Pilot in Nigeria Retrieved 14 February, 2013, from http://www.bankerswithoutborders.com/our-impact/human-capital-management-assessment-tool-pilot-nigeria

Wearing, S. (2001). Volunteer Tourism. Experiences that make a difference. Oxon, UK: CABI Publishing.

Weeden, C. (2003). Ethical and responsible tourism: Consumer trends in the UK. Journal Of Vacation Marketing, 9(271-284 ).

Yunus, M. (2003). Halving poverty by 2015-We can actually make it happen. London: Aurum Press.Zeng, B., Carter, R. W., Lacy, T., & Bauer, J. (2005). Effects of tourism development on the local

poor people: Case study in Taibai Region China. Journal of Services Research, 5, 131-148. Zhao, W., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2007). Tourism and Poverty Alleviation: An Integrative Research

Framework. In C. M. Hall (Ed.), Pro-poor Tourism: Who Benefits? Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty Reduction. UK: Channel View Publications.

18