Power and Tourism Policy

7/28/2019 Power and Tourism Policy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/power-and-tourism-policy 1/23

POWER AND TOURISM POLICYRELATIONS IN TRANSITION

Bill BramwellDorothea Meyer

Sheffield Hallam University, UK

Abstract: The paper develops and applies a relational approach to the study of power, pol-icymaking, and related debates associated with tourism development. This approach focuseson dialectical relations between actors and structures, seeking to break down the unhelpfuldualism between agency and structure. Actor interactions, power configurations, and networkrelations in connection with tourism-related policymaking and debates are considered for anisland in former East Germany. These relations are examined over a 10-year period duringthe country’s post-socialist transition to capitalism and representative democracy. The study contributes to an understanding of the use of a relational approach in policy research, andalso of transitional paths in such contexts. Keywords: relational approach, dialectics, power,post-socialist transition, East Germany. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Resume: Pouvoir et politique de tourisme: rapports en transition. Cet article applique uneapproche relationnelle a l’etude du pouvoir, de la prise de decisions et des debats associes audeveloppement du tourisme. Cette approche porte sur les relations dialectiques entre acteurset structures en cherchant a rompre le dualisme entre action et structure. Les interactionsd’acteurs, les configurations du pouvoir et les relations de reseau a propos des debats et de la prise de decisions lies au tourisme sont examinees pour une ıle en ex-Allemagne del’Est. Ces questions sont examinees sur une periode de 10 ans pendant la transition post-socialiste du pays au capitalisme et a la democratie representative. L’etude contribue a lacomprehension d’une approche relationnelle dans la recherche de politique et des cheminstransitoires dans ces contextes. Mots-cles: approche relationnelle, dialectique, pouvoir, tran-sition post-socialiste, Allemagne de l’Est. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

This paper examines tourism policy using a relational approach.This primarily concerns the complex nexus of relations among actorsand structures that effects dynamic changes in the organization of soci-ety ( Jessop 2001; Yeung 2005). Large numbers of elements withinthese connected and circulating relations interact in complex and rich ways. Inherent tensions in these relations, in turn, lead to their being‘‘emergent’’ or perpetually evolving at any particular point in time orin any specific geographical location. There is often a great deal of

Bill Bramwell and Dorothea Meyer are respectively, Professor and Senior Lecturer intourism at Sheffield Hallam University (Sheffield S1 1WB, United Kingdom. Email<[email protected]>). The former has research interests in actors and politicaleconomy, the politics of sustainability, and the geography of development. The interests of the latter relate to power and the political economy of development, and applied research ontourism as a tool for poverty reduction.

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 766–788, 20070160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2007.03.009 www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

766

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/0/1902398.pdf




heterogeneity and unevenness in the relational processes of intercon-nections, interactions, and tensions. The heterogeneous and dynamicrelations among actors and structures are conceptualized as causalmechanisms of socioeconomic change (Bathelt 2006; Urry 2003).

Social actions that shape tourism policy are seen as both path-dependent and more contingent or path-creating. They are the former in the sensethat past decisions influence those of today. But policy processes are not predetermined, as they are also contingent and emergent, leading todeviations from existing structures and the creation of new ones.

This relational perspective on policy is used to evaluate tourism pol-icymaking on the Baltic island of Rugen in former East Germany. Thestudy explores the socioeconomic and political relations among actorsassociated with, or affected by, the restructuring of the island’s tourismindustry. It focuses on actor involvement and the interactions, includ-

ing power relations, between the individuals and institutions engagedin tourism-related policymaking and in the associated debates. Atten-tion is directed to the processes of change and the emergent propertiesor transitions in interactions around Rugen’s policies. This relationalapproach may have wider applicability for researchers concerned withtourism policy elsewhere. Relations around policies in Rugen are as-sessed over 10 years from 1990 when East Germany became reunified with West Germany. During this period, East Germany was suddenly engaged in a transition from a centrally planned economy towards acapitalist, free market one within a multiparty, parliamentary politicalsystem. The case is intended to add to understanding of tourism inthe context of post-socialist transitions in the countries of Centraland Eastern Europe. Each country had its own trajectory of transition,but East Germany is notably distinctive as it was absorbed into an estab-lished capitalist democratic state through German reunification in1990 (Hall, Smith and Marciszewska 2006).

The literature on the roles played by tourism in the transitions in dif-ferent Central and Eastern European nations is limited (Balaz and Wil-liams 2005). There are exceptions, with Bachvarov (1997) showing how

in Bulgaria’s transition to a market economy investment has declined,and Williams and Balaz (2000) demonstrate how the post-1989 tourismindustry in Czechoslovakia, and later in the Czech Republic and Slova-kia, was rapidly marketized. Critical assessments of East Germany’stourism transition are also quite rare, although Coles (2003) exploresthe relations between the industry, place promotion, and economicrestructuring in post-socialist Leipzig. The present study adds to thislimited literature by focusing on the interplay between path depen-dency and the contingency of path creation, and also on the powerrelations and politics around tourism restructuring.

The relational approach used here is useful because it can assist inbreaking down unhelpful divides or dualisms in the theory and ap-proaches of social science research. There is a growing recognitionof the need to challenge these binary oppositions, whether betweendeveloped and developing, social agency and structural determination,necessity and contingency, holism and individualism, or local and

BRAMWELL AND MEYER 767



global ( Jessop 2001; Murdoch 1997). Dualistic thinking is problematicin social theory because it tends to cleave theoretical perspectives intotwo distinct and incommensurable parts, thereby polarizing wholefields of concepts and leading to a fractured view of the world. A rela-

tional perspective presupposes that relations between these opposingbinaries can be ‘‘re-imagined’’. It is contended that entities do not have separate and distinct essences, and that they achieve their mean-ings through their complex interconnections.

A relational approach is assisted if the relations between entities areexplored through dialectical thinking. This involves seeing social sys-tems as complex wholes or systems of relations, and examining themand their inherent oppositions or contradictions (Hook 1962). Marx’snotion of dialectic introduces a crucial empirical element, wherein thestrength and rate of interaction between these contradictions in any sit-

uation depends on the specific factors involved, and it is a determin-able but open historical process not deduced from a general formula(Peet 1998). While the ‘‘inner’’ relations that bind the parts of a thingneed to be sufficiently complementary for it to have coherence,contradictions also occur within them. But, additionally, there is an‘‘outer’’, external relational dimension to dialectics, and these outerrelations are also simultaneously both cooperative and competitive.Continuities and changes thus result from a synthesis between these in-ner and outer dialectics; these latter two aspects of continuity andchange may alternate in significance; and the types of their interactionare multiple and complex (Peet and Hartwick 1999:93).

Dualisms of all types are challenged through the use of a relationalapproach. This applies to this study, although particular attention is di-rected to overcoming the unhelpful dualism between structure (the wider social world) and the agency of individuals and organizations(the actors’ capacity to act upon situations) (Sibeon 1999). The view adopted here is influenced by Giddens’s structuration theory, whichrecognizes that action is taken by actors within structured contexts.His approach involves the notion of a ‘‘duality of structure’’ whereby

people both produce society, and are at the same time also influenced,and even constrained, by it. Structures are drawn on to generate ac-tions, and then arise the intended and unintended structural outcomesof countless recursive actions made by agents (Giddens 1979:5).Through these many iterations, the tiniest of ‘‘local’’ changes canresult in transformations even in large-scale structures. Thus the con-sciousness, reflexivity, and unintended consequences of human agency can shape the structures that both enable and constrain people’sactivities. Thus, rather than a dualism between structure and agency,there appears a ‘‘duality’’ in which structure and agency are bound

up together and co-evolve over time (Giddens and Pierson 1998:77;Urry 2003:46-7). Advocates of relational approaches differ in their for-mulations of the agency-structure dialectic. Some argue, for example,that Giddens privileges agency and displaces much of what is conven-tionally considered as ‘‘structure’’ into a thin account of ‘‘systems’’, while others consider that he allows insufficient space for agency

768 POWER AND POLICY RELATIONS



( Jessop 2001; Long 2001). Yet the idea of the dialectical interconnec-tivity between agency and structure is a significant advance that impor-tantly influenced this study.

This study focuses on power and its relationships with actor involve-

ment and interactions in policy debates around tourism development.It is contended that power emerges out of social relationships, whilealso being sustained by specific patterns of resource distribution andcompetition. The social interactions that reflect relationships of powermay be imbued with values, meanings, authority, and control. Tensionsin the relations between actors and in people’s reactions to situationsmean that power is emergent and mediated and realized in actor-spe-cific practice (Bramwell 2006, 2007; Long 2001). While power is per-formed and cannot simply be ‘‘possessed’’, the actors concerned may perceive it to be something that people either have or lack. Thus, an

actor may have a reputation for being powerful, based on hearsay ordirect knowledge of past outcomes arising from the structure of rela-tions in which that actor is embedded. A further important character-istic is that the sum of the heterogeneous relations that involve power ismuch greater than that of the individual parts.

Analysis here of policymaking uses the concept of policy networks(Dredge 2006). It is suggested that this notion ‘‘connects public poli-cies with their strategic and institutionalized context: the network of public, semi-public, and private actors participating in certain policy fields’’ (Kickert, Klijn, and Koppenjan 1997:1). Policy networks canbe depicted as mediating between the micro- and the macro-levels, cre-ating a connection between the wider societal structures and individualagency. From the relational perspective, policy networks are seen asarising out of complex social relationships in specific contexts and asdynamic, emergent, and characterized by ‘‘contingent openness’’(Bramwell and Pomfret 2007). Actors within policy networks engagein political relationships that are associated with the identification,framing, discussion, and negotiation of policy issues (Bramwell2005). Typically, however, there are unequal power relations among

the constellation of individuals and groups involved in policy networksat specific times, and they can also exclude less powerful groups that are affected by the issues and policies. There are also instances whereactors with important resources decide not to engage in these networks, or do so only covertly. It is for such reasons that this study of pol-icy networks gives prominence to power and the voluntary andinvoluntary inclusion and exclusion of different actors.

The present study’s treatment of policy networks reflects a relationaland dialectical approach focused on social relations. Marsh and Smith(2000) similarly advocate the use of dialectical ideas to understand pol-

icy networks, and they highlight the importance of examining threekinds of relationships (Evans 2001; Hay and Wincott 1998). First, thereare relationships between policy networks and the contexts within which they operate, such as the paths of capitalist development andcapital accumulation and the class divisions and inequalities in society. What appear to be more ‘‘exogenous’’ changes at the macro-scale canaffect the micro-level resources, interests, and relationships of actors




within policy networks. The effects of changes in the context are med-iated, however, through interpretation by the actors and through theirnetwork relationships.

Second, there are dialectical relationships between the structure of

policy networks and the actors operating within them. The former might be considered structural in that they have distinct sets of rules and canhelp to define the roles that actors play and to prescribe the issues that are discussed and how they are dealt with (Marsh and Smith 2000:5–7;Rhodes 2002). Giddens’s notion of ‘‘duality of structure’’, however,highlights how the rules and resources of policy networks are drawnupon and interpreted by actors, either inside or outside those networks,and it suggests that this then feeds back through their actions to changeor reproduce those same rules and resources. Third, the outcomes of thedebates and decisions have dialectical implications for the subsequent

shape of that network. The outcomes then encourage, for example, stra-tegic learning among the actors involved, and they can lead to changes inmembership or in the balance of resources in networks. The outcomesalso later can affect policy networks more indirectly, such as throughchanging the structural position and power of groups in society.

In this paper, the analysis of power and of involvement and interac-tions in Rugen’s tourism-related policy networks draws on the threedialectical relations outlined by Marsh and Smith (2000). First, atten-tion is paid to the island’s socioeconomic and political context, includ-ing the transition to capitalist relations after 1990. Second, anassessment is made of whether and how the debates and policies about tourism development reflected this wider context. This involves thefirst dialectical relation examined by Marsh and Smith: that betweenpolicy networks and the context within which they operate.

The third set of policy issues that is examined concerns the differinginvolvements of individuals and organizations with tourism-related pol-icy networks, the agency of these actors, the power relations betweenthem, and the conflicts and factions that emerged. This relates tothe second of Marsh and Smith’s dialectical interactions, namely,

between the structure of policy networks and the actors operating with-in them. Fourth, consideration is given to whether and how the out-comes of the policy networks, in the form of past debates anddecisions concerning tourism development, affected the actors’ actionsand the networks’ characteristics. This final theme is associated withMarsh and Smith’s third type of dialectical relation: the implicationsof debates and decisions that have emerged from policy networks fortheir subsequent developing shape. Taken overall, the relational anddialectical approach adopted in the study means that ‘‘context andactivity, structure and action, are treated as co-constitutive and co-gen-

erative’’ (Gonzalez and Healey 2005:2057).

POWER AND POLICY RELATIONS

The first task is to consider the island’s socioeconomic and politicalcontext, notably the transition to capitalist relations after 1990 when




East Germany joined the West in an enlarged Germany. Located in thecountry’s far north, Rugen is a Baltic island of 973 km2 that is linkedto the mainland by a causeway and bridge (Figure 1). With severallong-established coastal resorts, the island has a long history of depen-

dence on tourism (Statistisches Landesamt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern2000). It also has a highly attractive and relatively ‘‘unspoilt’’ land-scape, with 78% of the land area under nature protection regulations(with two national parks and one UNESCO biosphere reserve).

After unification the island’s tourism industry experienced rapidchanges. It had to adjust quickly from being part of a centrally-plannedeconomy within an authoritarian, single-party ‘‘socialist’’ state, to thenbeing integrated into West Germany’s capitalist, free-market economy (Fulbrook 2005). Immediately after 1990 Rugen attracted many highly curious day visitors from former West Germany (locally called schnup-

pertouristen , or ‘‘sniffer tourists’’), but it seriously struggled to attract long-stay tourists, partly because the accommodation lacked the quality standards of the ‘‘West’’ and many former East Germans could nolonger afford to holiday there or they traveled abroad, often for thefirst time (Freyer 1993). Numerous substandard facilities closed down, while several previously state-owned establishments, including hotels,holiday villages, and camping sites, were offered for privatization.These and other legacies from state socialism meant that the path tocapitalist growth after 1990 was not linear (Hall 2004; Hamilton1999:136; Williams and Balaz 2000:89–99). Instead, the early advanceof capitalism saw ‘‘de-development’’ (Meurs and Ranasinghe 2003),

Figure 1. Location of Rugen




with the closure of numerous tourism facilities. The number of tourist beds fell dramatically from 107,500 before re-unification (in 1989) to32,000 in 1991 (Landkreis Rugen 1999; and Tourismusverband Rugen1999a); and from nominal full employment in 1989 the unemploy-

ment rate rose to 23.5% in 1992 (the rate would have been very mark-edly higher without government schemes to reduce it).

This painful readjustment was, however, accompanied by a revalori-zation of the island’s real estate as developers recognized investment opportunities due to the potential for soaring property values. Theneed for speedy private sector investment to promote redevelopment,coupled with government and European Union subsidies for this devel-opment, meant that the former East Germany colloquially became‘‘the golden east’’, and Rugen’s tourism industry was seen as a partic-ularly attractive investment opportunity. Many investors were from the

old West Germany, often due to restitution claims for local propertiesthey had lost when forced to leave by the East German state in 1954.The ‘‘external’’ investors became an influential group of economicactors for Rugen. The tourist bed capacity began to rebound, risingfrom 32,000 in 1991 to reach 73,400 by 1999; unemployment, however,remained high through to the end of the 90s ( Arbeitsamt Stralsund1999; Herrschel 1997:274; Landkreis Rugen 1999; TourismusverbandRugen 1999a). The precise patterns of early reverses and later growth were not determined simply according to socialist legacies, however,and careful historical analysis is needed to establish how old and new pathways and human agency and structures intersected in the courseof post-socialist transition, whether in socioeconomic, political, orother arenas ( Williams and Balaz 2000; Worthington 2003:370).

Study Methodology

This assessment of interactions around Rugen’s tourism policiesintegrates a social constructionist analysis with a political economy ap-

proach. While it is important to gain understanding from individuals’subjectivities, it is felt that interpretations are also needed that movebeyond the meanings ascribed by actors (Blackshaw and Long1998:237). A double hermeneutic was recognized. Its first level ex-plored the ‘‘lived experiences’’ of individual actors, and was basedon a sustained immersion in the specific context, situations, and prac-tices found in Rugen. The second level accepted that how behavior isobserved is mediated through the lens of theory that is used, and thusinterpretations are also theory dependent (Toke and Marsh 2003:230). A political economy perspective was adopted that focuses on the devel-

opment of capitalism in society, notably on the demands of capitalaccumulation, the shifting character of power relationships, and thecomplex pressures on state and public policy. While political economy sometimes highlights structural relations and their effects on individu-als, it can also give prominence to the agency of groups and persons.This double hermeneutic involved the researchers in the reflexive,self-critical, and iterative processes of interpretation and explanation.




This study generally uses a qualitative approach to understand thecomplex interactions between actors, but it combines qualitative andquantitative methods in its assessment of policy networks. Theseapproaches have been used in past research on tourism policy net-

works, but they are infrequently employed together. Pforr (2006:90)uses a quantitative perspective to describe networks associated withtourism policies in Australia’s Northern Territory. He maps the pres-ence or absence of specific relationships between actors using spatialanalogies, with individuals shown in diagrams as ‘‘nodes’’ and withtheir specific relations with other actors presented as connecting‘‘lines’’ (Scott 1991). This sociometric approach is useful for summa-rizing specific network features, but on its own it is limited, as it simply identifies whether there are certain types of connections among actorsat a particular point in time, and thus it greatly simplifies the dynamic,

emergent, and multidimensional character of actor relationships(Borzel 1998:255). Therefore, that method was combined in the pres-ent study with a qualitative approach similar to that employed by Dredge (2006). She examines tourism policy networks at Australia’sLake Macquarie using interviews and analysis of discourse in order toexplore the dynamics of relations between actors in the networksand also their meanings, including ‘‘actor strategies, rules of conduct,levels of institutionalization and power relations’’ (2006:272). In thepresent study the interpretation of the sociometric diagrams of policy networks is guided by insights based on varied qualitative data, and oneof the diagrams is based on very subjective, qualitative evaluations by the respondents. In order to resist falling into a more static perspectivethat might result from the use of network diagrams, the wider data col-lection and interpretations sought to understand the processes of change, fluidity and tension.

Semistructured interviews, 21 in number, were conducted with individuals reputed to be influential in the island’s tourism-related activi-ties and debates. They were chosen purposively as ‘‘informationrich’’ actors based on their important positions, involvement in key

policy processes, and reputation as influential and informed ‘‘insid-ers’’. These influential individuals were identified from suggestionsmade by residents and other informants, reports in the media and var-ious documents, and from snowball suggestions made during the early interviews. Their inclusion in the interviews was also guided by theintention to ensure relevant groups were not under-represented. Theinterviewees included leading local representatives of the tourismindustry (9 respondents), environmental groups (4), local government (2), social and cultural interest groups (2), local politicians (1), thelocal tourism board (1), the area’s farmers’ association (1), and a local

journalist (1). While one influential individual was chosen as a leadingelected politician, six others combined their other involvements withbeing politicians.

A list of research themes guided the interviews, but this was used flex-ibly with opportunities taken to probe for rich, detailed accounts. Theissues discussed included the characteristics of various actors, the val-ues placed on resources, the control of valued resources, resource




dependencies, satisfaction with tourism development, participation inpolicy decisions, relationships among actors, resource exchanges,and opinions on policy debates. The taped interviews lasted from about 90 to 210 minutes, then they were transcribed and carefully read and

re-read in order to establish content and meaning, including patternsof similarities and differences. Several respondents were interviewedmore than once.

Additionally, informal conversations guided by the research themes were completed with 53 residents. Sampling locations were purposively chosen as places where residents frequently interact and ‘‘chat’’. Basedon information from insiders, these locations were allotment associa-tions, car shows, and adult education establishments. It was important to choose sampling locations offering a fairly informal and relaxedatmosphere to reduce people’s guardedness about expressing views,

a reluctance fostered in the state socialist period. These ‘‘guided conversations’’ were loosely structured so as to gain a reasonable ‘‘close-ness to ordinary conversations’’ (Hammersley 1992:163).

Most of the data were collected between April and July 1999, but information was sought for a 10-year period from 1990. The great majority of respondents themselves regularly compared the situationover the 90s with that of the socialist period pre-1989. Awareness of changes over the 90s was generally very high, and the interpretationsprovided were triangulated through comparison with the commentsof others and with other sources in order to check the veracity of peo-ple’s recall. The island was also visited several times during the 90s. Use was made of published and unpublished reports, internal documents,and newspapers from this period. Finally, public and interest groupmeetings were also attended and discussions were noted.

Context and Policies

A second task for the study was to assess whether and how the de-bates and policies about tourism development in Rugen reflected the wider socioeconomic and political context, notably the transition tocapitalist relations and representative democracy after reunification with former West Germany in 1990. The transition itself is consideredhere from a political economy perspective. It is argued that the debatesand policies reflected and influenced the transition processes in adialectical fashion, and subsequent analysis illustrates how they weresignificantly shaped through interactions between actors, policy networks, and the socioeconomic and political circumstances. Thisreflects the first dialectical relation examined by Marsh and Smith

(2000): that between policy networks and the context within whichthey operate.The shift towards a capitalist economy had marked consequences for

both socioeconomic and political relationships in Rugen. One conse-quence was that new investors and businesspeople emerged after theopening of the island’s economy to capitalism, the demise of much for-merly state-owned tourism infrastructure, and the revalorization of




investment opportunities. Some of the key tourism-related business-people in the 90s had previously been highly influential on the islandin the old East Germany. Several had run large-scale, state-owned farmsin the previous regime, and one major developer of holiday apart-

ments, who in the 90s was also a local mayor, had previously workedfor the Staatssicherheit (East Germany’s state security organization).The majority of owners and/or managers of the larger tourism proper-ties, however, were from the former West Germany, and some of thebiggest investors moved from there to live on the island, at least fora time. These business people from ‘‘outside’’ quickly became power-ful economic actors on the island, and some also became prominent inlocal politics. One such developer from West Germany, who in the late90s was seeking planning approval for a 2000 bed apartment and hotelcomplex, was also a local mayor and a County Councilor. Many inter-

viewees identified him as a major figure in relation to tourism on theisland.

Major changes in politics and governance occurred after re-unifica-tion, especially influenced by the transition from a centralized, single-party state to a more democratic, decentralized, and multiparty system. Local government in the state socialist period has beendepicted as comprising ‘‘little more than subordinate authorities of central government in Berlin’’ (Osterland 1994:6). After 1990 the‘‘mere agent role for local authorities’’ was replaced through anextension to the former East Germany of the West’s model of govern-mental institutions and regulations (Herrschel 2000:214; OECD 1997; Wollmann 2002). Local government became established on the prin-ciple of democratic and decentralized kommunale Selbstverwaltung (communal self-government), and the island became the politicaland administrative entity of a county, and more locally there were39 municipalities (and four larger urban areas). The municipalitiessecured notable independent authority in relation to land use anddevelopment plans and issuing planning permits, although some lar-ger developments needed county and federal state approval (OECD

1997:218). Their relative autonomy frustrated some tourism-relatedpolicies for the island developed by the county. While it sought tolimit development and tourism growth, many municipalities com-peted fiercely with each other to attract high levels of new investment in the industry and thus secure additional employment and tax reve-nues. The municipalities usually gave highest priority through the 90sto policies to tackle the continuing problems of high unemployment and modest local tax revenues. The pro-growth approach of many municipalities was further encouraged by generous national andEuropean Union funding for economic development projects in for-

mer East Germany ( Wirtschaftsministerium des Landes Mecklenburg- Vorpommern 1992:12, 38-9).Not only were the municipalities relatively autonomous in these new

arrangements, but many island residents were more concerned about local politics in the municipalities rather than about more distant,administrative issues at the county level. This was reflected in the re-sponses of local residents when they were asked to identify individuals




or groups who were influential in relation to tourism: they mainly focused on influential actors at the local municipal scale rather thanthose prominent island-wide. Many mentioned their personal knowl-edge of, and sometimes contact with, local politicians, but few

mentioned county councilors. They often also highlighted local politi-cians who were also engaged in tourism-related business activities,reflecting the importance of links between politics and business.

The intense development pressures and rapid restructuring of Rugen’s economy encouraged some people from the early 90s to pushfor policies to protect the island’s attractive environment from over-development. In 1993 Fu r Ru gen (a citizen group), which later becamethe local political party Bu ndnis fu r Ru gen (BfR , or Alliance for Rugen),developed proposals for the island based on principles advocated at the 1992 World Summit on Sustainable Development. The proposals

were to secure employment growth and environmental quality throughhigh quality tourism and recreation combined with ecologically-basedagriculture. Supporters of this approach argued that the island shouldpioneer a ‘‘model’’ of regional sustainable development, and the pro-posals became known as the Modell Region .

In 1993 Rugen’s county council adopted a ‘‘tourism development concept’’ for the whole island which, while influenced by some princi-ples of sustainable development, differed from the Modell Region , nota-bly in that it focused solely on tourism development. It was adoptedonly as a guide to decisions, and there was no compulsion for themunicipalities to conform with it (Freyer 1993; Lichtenberg 2003). A key element of it was to restrict the quantity of tourism development to a ratio of 1:1 between the island’s resident population and the num-ber of beds. By 1999 this growth limit had become a major focus fordiscussion among key interest groups, as for the first time since 1990the island’s population (77,000) was exceeded by the tourist bed total(80,000).

While the county never officially adopted the Modell Region , several of its ideas and projects were implemented independently by it and other

actors. Further, it was discussed continuously through the 90s, withsharp disagreements over whether it was an appropriate development strategy for the island. Indeed, many influential actors who were inter- viewed in 1999 considered that from 1993 contrasting views on thestrategy became both fairly entrenched and prominent in political de-bates. Some supported the strategy and opposed continued substantialtourism growth because of their environmental concerns, as was thecase for the respondents in various environmental groups and theNationalparkamt (federal nature protection agency). Others who op-posed further major tourism development seemed motivated more

by concerns about its potentially adverse impacts on smaller tourismbusinesses, that were less able to compete, and about it assistingoutside developers rather than local business people. Opponents of the Modell Region were often pro-economic development. They felt the strategy’s emphasis on environmental protection wouldhamper growth and people’s material well-being, particularly in theisland’s context of high unemployment and infrastructural problems.




An hotelier commented that ‘‘The Modell Region is a danger, becausethere is great interest in it. They are trying to create an eco-fantasy landhere on the island, and if that happens the tourism industry will suf-fer’’. The opponents were often also critical of proposals by local

‘‘green’’ groups and organizations to favor small- and medium-scalelocal companies and smaller developments, as opposed to large-scaleprojects by outsiders, considering that that approach was insufficient on its own to tackle the scale of the island’s unemployment problem.

In practice the county found it very difficult to implement its ‘‘tour-ism development concept’’ and related growth restrictions. This wasbecause it largely depended on land-use planning controls and theissuing of planning permits, which were mainly controlled by munici-palities relatively autonomous from the county. In the early 90s thecounty had not been very active in encouraging the municipalities to

work with it cooperatively or collaboratively. In the main, throughout the 90s, the municipalities ignored the county’s tourism development vision; instead they focused on attracting new investment in order tobring jobs and revitalize the deficient infrastructure. For the munici-palities the priorities were boosting employment and local tax revenuesand securing economic development in the face of the very high unem-ployment levels post-reunification.

The municipalities’ pro-development priorities often matched theresidents’ preferences as expressed in the guided conversations in1999. Most residents broadly supported the rapid speed of develop-ment over the 90s, and the majority generally favored further growth,especially redevelopment to rectify deficiencies in the existing infra-structure. Yet, frequently they were critical that development had oftenbeen orchestrated by entrepreneurs from former West Germany, andthus they were losing control of their own economy; so many were con-cerned that further rapid growth could lead to over-development that would harm existing businesses. Few residents saw the nature protec-tion groups as representing their interests, often considering that they hindered economic development, and thus job creation, and also

believing many of their active members were ‘‘outsiders’’ who repre-sented ‘‘external’’ interests.

Actors, Power, and Policy Networks

The third task for the study is to evaluate the differing involvementsof individuals and organizations with tourism-related policy networks,the agency of these actors, the power relations between them, andthe conflicts and factions that emerged. This relates in particularto the second of Marsh and Smith’s (2000) dialectical interactions, that

between the structure of policy networks and the actors operating with-in them. Attention is directed first to power. The analysis of power evaluates

relationships between actors and their influence on policy debatesand decisions affecting tourism. While a consideration of these rela-tions is important because power is not simply possessed, it may be-come reified in social life so that people think it is accumulated in




that way. Thus, a reputational analysis was also undertaken in order toassess people’s perceptions about the power of other actors. This latterapproach involved asking the influential interviewees to identify others who greatly influenced the local tourism issues.

According to the reputational analysis, four organizations or groupsof individuals were often seen as very strongly influential in relation totourism issues: a number of people associated with the ‘‘old powerstructure’’ of the former East Germany; the organization that managedthe island’s protected areas and was linked with various ‘‘green’’ inter-est groups; a local newspaper and the tourism developer who foundedit; and the county’s bank. First, individuals linked to the ‘‘old powerstructure’’ from the state socialist period were identified as very influ-ential by several respondents. The three members of this most oftenidentified as very influential had previously managed, or had been

employed by, large state-owned farms in the socialist era. After unifica-tion they all remained in agriculture, they co-founded or joined thepolitical party (the BfR ) that initiated the Modell Region proposals, andthey became elected councilors at both county and municipality levels.One hotelier suggested that these former state farm employees had vested interests in pushing for conservation rather than rapid develop-ment. He noted that they now ‘‘own large areas of land and get so many subsidies; that is why they are interested in pushing for a nature parkacross the whole island, then they will get even more subsidies for land-scape protection. They are important, they are very important’’.

Second, the federal level protected area organization, Nationalpar- kamt (the National Park Office) was often also identified as influential,especially by respondents engaged in real estate development and whobelieved that its emphasis on the island’s conservation was jeopardizingeconomic growth. Several noted that the influence of this institution’shead was heightened by his other activities as a founder of the politicalparty (the BfR ) behind the Modell Region proposals and as an outspokenpublic critic of local tourism development. The third organization per-ceived as very influential was the island’s free and widely-read newspa-

per, Der Ru ¨ ganer , which was set up by a prominent developer and hasbeen consistently and strongly pro-development. Finally, many consid-ered that the county’s bank had been strongly influential in relation totourism due to its providing loans for the industry’s restructuring,including finance for public infrastructure.

A number of organizations and individuals were identified as moder-ately rather than very influential. These were the island’s Tourismusver- band Ru gen (tourism board), various environmental protection groups(such as Naturschutzbund Deutschland or NABU , the local branch of anationally-based nature protection organization), the county council

and its administration, the political party that developed the Modell Region proposal (the BfR ), and also a select group of large-scale tourismdevelopers. Within the county administration two senior officers werefrequently mentioned, both founder members of the BfR and support-ers of the Modell Region . Many of the most prominent large-scale devel-opers mixed their investments in tourism projects with an involvement in local politics. One major developer from West Germany, who was




named as influential by ten of the twenty-one interviewees, had reno- vated and sold several hotels and several hundred holiday apartmentson the island, and had set up the noted local newspaper, Der Ru ¨ ganer .In 1997 he left the island for tourism property investments elsewhere,

but several interviewees said he still exercised much power there. Oneexplained that ‘‘he is not as obvious any more, but I am sure he stilluses his channels and has a large influence’’.

Some notably different views about the Modell Region vision of con-trolled or sustainable development, were held by organizations involved in the island’s tourism-related policymaking. It will be shownthat this division in opinion was sometimes reflected in differing inter-actions among organizations involved in the island’s policy networks.Supporters of the Modell Region included the county council and itsadministration, and also the BfR . This local political party brought

together environmental groups and agricultural interests, includingsome prominent former managers of large state-owned farms, withina broadly ‘‘green’’ alliance that opposed large-scale development that they considered damaging to the area’s special qualities. Other advo-cates of these proposals and founding members of the BfR includedthe Nationalparkamt (the federal agency responsible for managing theisland’s protected areas), one broadly green group concerned with cul-tural and community development, Insula Rugia, and the localbranches of two environmental groups: Naturschutzbund Deutschkand (NABU ) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (set up in 1992and 1990 respectively).

Opponents of the Modell Region vision included Tourismusverband Ru gen that was set up in 1991 to encourage business cooperation toassist in the industry’s restructuring. While originally part of the county administration, it was later re-established as a business association andafter that the public sector influence on its activities was very limited.Only relatively few providers of smaller-scale accommodation were involved in it; with many interviewees commenting that it tended to rep-resent large businesses offering high quality accommodation. One

county councilor contended that ‘‘It does not represent the tourismindustry on the island. Instead, it represents only a few large hotels’’. Another opponent of the sustainable development vision was Der Ru ganer , the widely read local newspaper. This was criticized by many respondents as consistently opposing environmental protection andfor depicting the environmental groups as hindering economic devel-opment. A county council economic development official complainedthat: ‘‘The paper changes its enemies, but always in the same direction.First, the Nationalparkamt , then the head of the county administration,then the voluntary nature protection groups, such as NABU ’’.

The Modell Region proposal is a key background for the debatesamong parties interested in development and tourism. The tourismdevelopment concept and tourism growth limit that were adopted by the county only drew in a limited way on certain ideas of sustainabledevelopment and they had only very modest practical effects. These were very limited because in practice the county council had less polit-ical power than the individual municipalities around decisions about




specific development applications, and because investors had consider-able economic power, particularly in relation to expectations for theeconomic restructuring of former East Germany. The decisions alsotook place in a context where residents were mainly pro-development

and also suspicious of environmentalists who they considered were hin-dering local job creation and economic recovery.

The evaluation next considers the interactions between organiza-tional actors in the tourism-related policy networks in Rugen, and whether they reflected the divided views about the Modell Region pro-posals. The analysis is based on responses to questions about actors with whom organizations voluntarily undertook relevant joint tourismactivities judged important and about the actors with whom organiza-tions willingly and frequently shared information and knowledge.The questions sought to highlight these interactions when they were

voluntary and also more intense or regular than would result fromtheir necessary basic organizational roles. They are presented in twosociograms, where the organizational actors are shown as ‘‘nodes’’,the interactions are represented through connecting ‘‘lines’’ whichmay indicate directions to communication, and the organizations areplaced on a continuum according to their own indication of the extent to which they supported or opposed the Modell Region .

First, the interview respondents identified actors with whom organi-zations voluntarily undertook joint activities relevant and important totourism, such as collaboration on shared development or marketingprojects. Figure 2 shows that most such joint activities took place be-tween organizations that broadly supported the Modell Region . Notablehere was the county administration’s tourism-related work with otheragencies also interested in sustainability principles. Some of this arosedirectly from talks about the Modell Region and the tourism develop-

Anti-Modell Region Pro-Modell Region

________________________________________________________________

CDUDeHoGa

FVVBinz

CountyAdministration

AufschwungWest

RügenProdukt NABU

BfR

National-parkamt

Binz

AG

Farmers’Association

WWF

InsulaRugia

CountyBank

Tourismus-verband

Rüganer

BiosphärenRat

Figure 2. Joint Activities between Organizational Actors




ment concept, such as product marketing activities with Ru gen Product ,and public transport schemes with the Nationalparkamt and the localbranches of NABU and WWF. The BfR , Nationalparkamt, and Farmers Association also shared initiatives with several other organizations. Fig-

ure 2 also reveals that joint activity was comparatively less frequent among opponents of the Modell Region . Despite these evident factions,the county administration and also the island’s Tourismusverband Ru gen had a modest bridging role between organizations for and against theModell Region , although the board had to engage in joint marketing with all organizations that had paid their membership subscriptions.

Second, respondents’ responses about actors with whom organiza-tions voluntarily and frequently shared information and knowledgeare presented in Figure 3. Here again there were many more connec-tions between promoters of the Modell Region than among its oppo-

nents. Among supporters there was a dense web of informationexchange between the county administration, Nationalparkamt , NABU and World Wide Fund. Within this same faction, the broadly greenpolitical party, the BfR , mainly received information from other organi-zations as it acted as their political voice in its discussions and decision-making within the county council. Among opponents of the Modell Region there was a less marked but still significant exchange of informa-tion. Finally, while there was some knowledge transfer between the twobroad factions, there would have been little if the tourism board andthe county administration were removed from this knowledge network.Overall, the information exchanges were rather modest between thetwo opposing sides.

Respondents were also asked very directly to identify which actors were unlikely to collaborate closely in the near future because they had different objectives or priorities. In addition, comments relevant


________________________________________________________________

BfRCDU

InsulaRugia

WWFBinzAG


Rüganer

CountyBank


Rügen

Produkt

NABU

National-parkamt

DeHoGa

BiosphärenRat

AufschwungWest

Tourismus-verband

FVVBinz

Figure 3. Knowledge Transfers between Organizational Actors




to this theme were drawn from other parts of the interviews. The re-sponses were forward-looking about future potential relationships,but they were also based on accumulated past experience, and thusthey are suggestive of dynamic relationships. The subjective evaluations

of unlikely future close partners are shown in Figure 4, which uses thesame sociogram techniques as the previous two diagrams. The patternindicates that the unlikely partners are across the divide between sup-porters and opponents of the Modell Region , and it suggests that futurecollaboration between these factions will be difficult to achieve.

So far the discussion has focused on the involvement and agency of organizational actors in policy networks, but now it briefly considersthe importance of individual actors’ involvement in those networks.One interesting dimension of many was how some of the most influen-tial individuals in the policy networks shared several mutual member-

ships of organizations. A group of seven prominent individuals stood out due to their over-

lapping memberships: all were members of the BfR (Alliance for Ru-gen), the broadly green local political party, and all supported theModell Region . These members of the influential green faction wereboth highly interlinked and also active local politicians, three at county level. During the state socialist period, all but one had lived on the is-land, where they had been active in local politics or in various interest groups. At that time, two were managers of large-scale state farms andone held a high rank in the army. By contrast with this green faction, it was relatively unusual for the major tourism investors and developers tobe involved in overlapping memberships of local organizations, with afew exceptions. This suggests that large-scale investors and businessesgenerally felt little need to join local organizations. These actors hadnot needed to be deeply embedded in local policy networks in order


BfRCDU

InsulaRugia

WWF

NABU

BinzAG


CountyBank

DeHoGa


Tourismus-verband

FVVBinz Rügen

Produkt

AufschwungWest

National-parkamt

Rüganer

Biosphären

Rat

Figure 4. Subjective Evaluations of Unlikely Future Close Partners




to consolidate their economic influence; their relatively ‘‘weak ties’’ within policy networks were sufficient because they owned capitaland property resources (Granovetter 1973).

Policy Outcomes and Policy Networks

The fourth task is to consider whether and how the accumulated out-comes of the policy networks, in the form of past debates and decisionsconcerning tourism and development, subsequently affected the ac-tors’ actions and the networks’ characteristics. This final theme is asso-ciated with the third type of dialectical relation examined by Marshand Smith (2000), that of the implications of the debates and decisionsemerging from policy networks for their subsequent developing shape.

Such an interactive and dialectical relation is evident for the divisionsand alliances around the debate about the Modell Region , with these dif-ferences being reflected and reinforced in subsequent policy interac-tions and policy outcomes.

The lack of agreed views around either the Modell Region or thecounty’s tourism policies, both developed in 1993, encouraged theNationalparkamt (national park office) and then later the county to takethe lead in 1998 in a new collaborative planning process to review past trends and develop a new vision for the island’s development. This pro-cess, called the Moderationsprozeß , sought to detect problems and iden-tify policy initiatives through workshops and moderated discussions,and eventually about 160 interest groups or individuals had partici-pated in at least one of the workshops. The tourism and culture work-shop was the largest of these, with 54 participants.

From the start, several groups and individuals were very skepticalabout the Moderationsprozeß , largely because they opposed the originalModell Region . Their strategic learning over the 90s meant many of them feared that it was another green initiative to limit development and increase the already strong powers of the Nationalparkamt . Thus,

the participation of business groups was extremely low. In the interviews many respondents indicated that the business sector largely ex-cluded itself from the process, and that the tourism representatives who attended—including the Tourismusverband Ru ¨ gen (the island’stourism board)—did so largely to limit its progress. One influentiallocal government official claimed that ‘‘Tourism was the least success-ful of all the workshop groups, and here much more engagement of the Tourismusverband was hoped for. The latter was blocking, evendestructive’’. Further, several respondents were critical of the localnewspaper, Der Ru ¨ ganer , which either did not report the meetings or

only commented on their negative features. The great majority of respondents argued in 1999 that the Moderationsprozeß was unsuccess-ful. It can be argued that the process largely served merely to highlight past differences and divisions between actors, notably between those with economic interests and those focused on ecological issues.

Another problem for the Moderationsprozeß was that, while it wasbeing undertaken in 1998, the island’s Tourismusverband Ru gen started




a rival consultation process to formulate a Leitbildgestaltung (develop-ment vision). Several respondents saw this process as a successful at-tempt by the industry to retain its influence on tourism policies. According to one environmental organization’s representative, the

board ‘‘placed great emphasis on the fact that their vision had nothingto do with the Moderationsprozeß ’’. While there was some consultation with other interest groups, many considered that this was very limitedand that decisionmaking was dominated by the board, which was lar-gely a private sector marketing organization. A leading county official,for example, criticized the process by asking: ‘‘who is behind the Leit- bildgestaltung ? Is it the mass of people, or is it the 12 people from themarketing committee? That would be a good question’’. The policiesthat were agreed after this rival consultation process included accep-tance of the county’s policy from 1993 that ‘‘The bed capacity upper

limit is based on a bed/population ratio of 1:1’’, but this restrictionon growth seemed to contradict its policy emphasis that ‘‘Tourism asan economic sector needs to have the highest priority in political deci-sions’’ (Tourismusverband Rugen 1999a, 1999b). This rival consulta-tion exercise reflected earlier factional divisions, and the resultingpolicy outcomes partly reinforced those earlier divisions.

CONCLUSION

This study outlined a relational approach to the study of develop-ment and policy in tourism. The approach focused on the connectedand circulating relations among actors and structures and on their dy-namic character. These relations in transition were explored throughthe idea of tensions and oppositions, notably through the dialecticalconnections between agency and structure. The relational perspectiveused here allows for detailed assessment of continuities and changes inspecific contexts, of their connections with societal trends and hetero-geneity, of their interactions among different spatial or geographical

scales, as well as of emergence and contingent openness. The approachalso combined a social constructionist focus on the agency of actors with a political economy perspective. Other researchers may concludethat the relational approach has potential value for future studies of development and of policy processes related to it.

This relational perspective was used here to analyze power, policy-making, and policy debates around tourism development on the islandof Rugen in former East Germany. Policy networks relevant to this pro-cess were evaluated for three specific dialectical relations: between pol-icy networks and the context within which they operate, between the

structure of those networks and the actors operating within them,and between the outcomes of the networks and the subsequent networkdevelopment. The study showed, first, how the island’s tourism industry underwent painful restructuring as it was incorporated and ‘‘market-ized’’ within the capitalist free market. There was analysis, second, of how the debates and policies reflected and affected the socioeconomicand political processes of transition. It was seen, for example, how busi-




ness people from ‘‘outside’’ became powerful local economic actorsand gained influence in the island’s politics, the local municipalitiesgave priority to pro-growth policies in response to their economic diffi-culties, and some key island-wide policy debates concentrated on the

tensions between economic growth and environmental protection.Third, there was examination of connections between the various ac-

tors and the structure of policy networks. Certain groups were reputedto be strongly influential in tourism issues, including the ‘‘old powerstructure’’ of the former East Germany, a federal level protected areaorganization, and a local newspaper and the tourism developer that established it. Further, while the island’s county council established adevelopment limit in 1993, this organization’s relative lack of politicaland economic power meant that the policy’s practical effects were very modest. This was because the county had less political power than the

smaller municipalities in relation to decisions about specific develop-ment applications, and less economic power than the developers that sought to gain from property revalorization. It was also shown how ac-tors’ differing views about sustainable development and tourismgrowth tended to be reflected in their somewhat different patternsof interactions (including divisions and alliances) within the island’spolicy networks. Four, it was revealed that debates and policies associ-ated with the policy networks were an influence on the subsequent developing shape of those networks, with this occurring in an emer-gent manner that was both path-dependent and path-creating. Theactors’ accumulated experiences of earlier debates around the Modell Region and the county’s policies—their history of strategic learning—and the associated factional divisions, appear to have influenced laterinitiatives and the actors’ reactions to them.

The paper contributes to an understanding of relational perspectivesin tourism research and also of transitional pathways in post-socialist contexts. In the latter context, Rugen reflected East Germany’s uniquetensions and trajectories of transition among Central and EasternEuropean nations because it was absorbed into an established capitalist

democratic state. The analysis gained additional depth by consideringaspects of the interplay of path dependency and structural legacies withthe contingency of path creation and human agency. Members of the‘‘old power structure’’ from the state socialist period, for example, were seen to have retained much influence, although they significantly adapted their policy preferences and their political strategies to theemerging circumstances. The discussion also adds to existing literaturein the field by showing how the transition was mediated through thedialectics of power relations and politics around sustainable develop-ment and tourism restructuring.

REFERENCES

Arbeitsamt Stralsund1999 Der Arbeitsmarkt Im Arbeitsamtbezirk Stralsuns. Stralsund: Arbeitsamt

Stralsund.




Bachvarov, M.1997 End of the Model? Tourism in Post-Communist Bulgaria. Tourism

Management 18:43–50.Balaz, V., and A. Williams

2005 International Tourism as Bricolage: An Analysis of Central Europe on the

Brink of European Union Membership. International Journal of TourismResearch 7:79–93.

Bathelt, H.2006 Geographies of Production: Growth Regimes in Spatial Perspective 3:

Toward a Relational View of Economic Action and Policy. Progress in HumanGeography 30:223–236.

Blackshaw, T., and J. Long1998 A Critical Examination of the Advantages of Investigating Community

and Leisure From a Social Network Perspective. Leisure Studies 17:233–248.

Borzel, T.1998 Organizing Babylon: On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks.

Public Administration 76:253–273.Bramwell, B.

2005 Actors, Networks and Tourism Policies. In Tourism Management Dynam-ics. Trends, Management and Tools, D. Buhalis and C. Costa, eds., pp.155–163. Oxford: Elsevier.

2006 Actors, Power, and Discourses of Growth Limits. Annals of TourismResearch 33:957–978.

2007 Opening Up New Spaces in the Sustainable Tourism Debate. TourismRecreation Research 32: 1–9.

Bramwell, B., and G. Pomfret 2007 Planning for Lake and Lake Shore Tourism: Complexity, Coordination

and Adaptation. Anatolia 17:(Forthcoming).

Coles, T.2003 Urban Tourism, Place Promotion and Economic Restructuring: The Case

of Post-Socialist Leipzig. Tourism Geographies 5:190–219.Dredge, D.

2006 Policy Networks and the Local Organization of Tourism. TourismManagement 27:269–280.

Evans, M.2001 Understanding Dialectics in Policy Network Analysis. Political Studies

49:542–550.Freyer, W.

1993 Tourismus-Konzeption Rugen. Heilbronn/Rugen: Forschungsinstitut FurTourismus.

Fulbrook, M.2005 The People’s State. East German Society from Hitler to Honecker. New

Haven: Yale University Press.Giddens, A.

1979 Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction inSocial Analysis. London: Macmillan.

Giddens, A., and C. Pierson1998 Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity.

Cambridge: Polity Press.Gonzalez, S., and P. Healey

2005 A Sociological Institutionalist Approach to the Study of Innovation inGovernance Capacity. Urban Studies 42:2055–2069.

Granovetter, M.1973 The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78:1360–

1380.Hall, D.

2004 Introduction. In Tourism and Transition: Governance, Transformationand Development, D. Hall, ed., pp. 1–24. Wallingford: CABI.




Hall, D., M. Smith, and B. Marciszewska2006 Introduction. In Tourism in the New Europe: The Challenges and

Opportunities, D. Hall, M. Smith and B. Marciszweska, eds., pp. 3–19. Wallingford: CABI.

Hamilton, I.

1999 Transformation and Space in Central and Eastern Europe. The Geo-graphical Journal 165:135–144.

Hammersley, M.1992 What’s Wrong with Ethnography? London: Routledge.

Hay, C., and D. Wincott 1998 Structure, Agency and Historical Institutionalism. Political Studies

46:951–957.Herrschel, T.

1997 Economic Transformation, Locality and Policy in Eastern Germany. A Comparison of Two Lander. Applied Geography 17:267–281.

2000 Population Shifts and Local Democratic Representation in EasternGermany. GeoJournal 50:213–223.

Hook, S.1962 From Hegel to Marx: Studies in the Intellectual Development of Karl

Marx. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Jessop, B.

2001 Institutional Re(turns) and the Strategic-Relational Approach. Environ-ment and Planning A 33:1213–1235.

Kickert, W., E. Klijn, and J. Koppenjan1997 Managing Complex Networks. Strategies for the Public Sector. London:

Sage.Landkreis Rugen

1999 Rugen Tourismus in Zahlen. Bergen Auf Rugen: Amt Fur Wirtschaftsforde-rung Und Tourismus.

Lichtenberg, T.2003 Kooperation in Der Regionalplanung: Effizienzanalyse Des Regionalen

Entwicklungskonzeptes Der Insel Rugen. Berlin: Mensch Und Buch Verlag.Long, N.

2001 Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives. London: Routledge.Marsh, D., and M. Smith

2000 Understanding Policy Networks: Towards a Dialectical Approach. PoliticalStudies 48:4–21.

Meurs, M., and R. Ranasinghe2003 De-Development in Post-Socialism: Conceptual and Measurement Issues.

Politics and Society 31:31–54.Murdoch, J.

1997 Towards a Geography of Heterogeneous Associations. Progress in HumanGeography 21:321–337.

OECD1997 Managing Across Levels of Government. Germany. www.oecd.org/data-

oecd/10/0/1902398.pdf (12 July 2006).Osterland, M.

1994 Coping With Democracy: The Re-Institution of Local Self-Government inEastern Germany. European Urban and Regional Studies 1:5–18.

Peet, R.1998 Modern Geographical Thought. Oxford: Blackwell.

Peet, R., and E. Hartwick1999 Theories of Development. New York: Guilford Press.

Pforr, C.2006 Tourism Policy in the Making. An Australian Network Study. Annals of

Tourism Research 33:87–108.Rhodes, R.

2002 Putting People back into Networks. Australian Journal of Political Science37:399–416.








Scott, J.1991 Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. London: Sage.

Sibeon, R.1999 Agency, Structure, and Social Chance as Cross-Disciplinary Concepts.

Politics 19:139–144.

Statistisches Landesamt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern2000 Statistisches Jahrbuch Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 1999. Schwerin: Statis-

tisches Landesamt.Toke, D., and D. Marsh

2003 Policy Networks and the GM Crops Issue: Assessing the Utility of aDialectical Model of Policy Networks. Public Administration 81:229–251.

Tourismusverband Rugen1999a Tourismusleitbild Rugen (long version). Rugen: Rugendruck Putbus.1999b Tourismusleitbild Rugen (short version). Rugen: Rugendruck Putbus.

Urry, J.2003 Global Complexity. Cambridge: Polity.

Williams, A., and V. Balaz

2000 Tourism in Transition. Economic Change in Central Europe. Tauris:London.

Wirtschaftsministerium des Landes Mecklenburg-Vorpommern1992 Jahreswirtschaftsbericht des Landes Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Schwerin:

Wirtschaftsministerium des Landes Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Wollmann, H.

2002 Local Government and Politics in East Germany. German Politics11:153–178.

Worthington, B.2003 Change in an Estonian Resort: Contrasting Development Contexts. Annals

of Tourism Research 30:369–385. Yeung, H.

2005 Rethinking Relational Economic Geography. Transactions of the Instituteof British Geographers NS 30:37–51.

Submitted 12 July 2006. Resubmitted 1 December 2006. Resubmitted 18 December 2006. Final version 17 January 2007. Accepted 14 March 2007. Refereed anonymously.Coordinating Editor: Allan M. Williams


Documents

Power and Tourism Policy