Essay:

Essay details:

  • Subject area(s): Marketing
  • Price: Free download
  • Published on: 14th September 2019
  • File format: Text
  • Number of pages: 2

Text preview of this essay:

This page is a preview - download the full version of this essay above.

Introduction

Personal interest

During my minor Making Places and Shaping Destinations  in the 4th year, I have attended classes that concerned destination governance. During these classes we had to read several academic journals which discussed the performance of governance in several nations around the globe. The class would discuss what they were doing well and what could be improved. We also looked at the cause of the good or bad performance of destination governance. During this course, one of the main things that tickled my particular interest was whether and how a nation's culture could be a reason why some DMO's and consequently destinations perform well  or perform badly. This particular question crossed my mind quite often. Therefore I have decided to take matters into my own hand and try to find out by using this subject for my thesis research.

By adopting three case studies in the cities of Bremen, Rotterdam and Marseilles I would like to find that out.  Even though all three countries are situated in Europe and there are common grounds, it could be said that there are differences between the cultures and the performance of governance.  

The employees of Bremer Touristik-Zentrale Gesellschaft für Marketing und Service mbH, Rotterdam Parners and Marseille Office de Tourisme et des Congrès will be asked about their cultural values and how they would rate the performance of good governance within their organisation. The combined results could indicate whether and  which cultural value(s) have an effect on the performance of good governance.

This thesis will go in depth about the already existing literature, the theories and frameworks that will be applied for my research, the case studies and the results and implications that derived from my empirical research.

Defining the problem and relevance for tourism sector

Introduction

For the last three decades organisational scholars have been concerned with culture because they believe organisational culture affects performance (Lee and Yu, 2004). However, it is generally acknowledged that culture works on a number of different levels and the organisational level is only one (Pizam, 1993). In the context of globalised industries it is relevant for managers, especially those of multi-national corporations operating in different regions, to be aware of the effect of national culture.  A nation's culture can be perceived as the mother of all path dependencies.  Figuratively, it means that a nation's culture might be more persistent than other factors believed to induce path dependence. Substantively, a nation's unique set of cultural values might indeed affect — in a chain of causality — the development of that nation's laws in general and its corporate governance system in particular. (Licht, 2001)

Relationship between culture and governance

On a broad scale the link between national culture and corporate governance has been established. Licht (2001) states culture influences the organizational policies through the values held by decision makers. He suggests culture contributes to the interpersonal relationship of individuals and institutions relationships and consequently changes the choice of corporate governance structure. Licht, Goldschmidt, & Schwartz (2004) study the effects of culture on three social norm of governance. They are: the rule of law, non-corruption level, and democratic accountability. La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer, & Vishny (1998) also found a noteworthy relationship between legal system and culture. De Jong & Semenov (2006) explain significant relationships between corporate control, ownership structure, protection of minority shareholders and cultural dimension of Hofstede. Li & Harrison (2008) used Hofstede model to explain the structure of corporate boards.

Problem and relevance

However, all this research have had a very broad set up. The authors used many and different institutions and companies to establish a link. This is understandable, given the fact one needs a lot of theoretical/empirical evidence to be acknowledged. Moreover, when it comes to a ‘fuzzy' concept as culture.  

Until this day, there has not been a research that establishes the link between national culture and good governance in the tourism sector. One can say that the tourism sector is a significant sector that represents a globalised industry with many multi-national corporations. As mentioned by Lee and Yu this stresses an urgency to understand the link between ones cultural values and corporate decision making. In particular the DMO's that work with different nationalities and backgrounds on a daily basis. Simultaneously, since recent times most European DMO's have changed into private-public partnerships due to a withdrawal of the national government.

This increases the responsibility of DMO's to perform well on good governance. It could be argued that the performance of a DMO and consequently the performance of a destination is influenced by its national culture. Having a simultaneous focus on cultural behaviour and performance will show to the DMO's which kind of behaviour establishes good governance and which behaviour has a reversed effect on the performance of good governance. The implications of this research will hopefully have a positive effect on the managerial decision making of the DMO's.

This thesis will use the theoretical background of other authors to establish this link in the tourism sector. Besides, there will be a simultaneous focus on what his means in practice. Having empirical proof is not sufficient enough to explain the link and help the destinations in understanding what this effect really means and what they could do in order to improve their performance as a destination.

Chapter 1. Research questions

In order to answer the main question, several other questions need to be answered first. These questions can be subdivided in three categories: describing questions, case related questions and concluding questions.

Describing questions

The starting point of my research is to discover the different components of my main question.

These components need to be clearly defined as done by different academics.

Simultaneously, it is also important  to know whether the link between national cultural and good governance has already been researched and if so, which results were discovered.  

Therefore I have come up with three describing questions.

• What is the definition of culture?

• What is good governance?

• Is there a substantial link between national culture and the performance of good governance?

Case related questions

The second point of my research is to discover more about the cities that I have chosen, naming Bremen, Marseille and Rotterdam. In order to get a complete picture on the governance performance of the destinations it is important to understand how it is organised on a national level and consequently on a local level. Next to knowing this, it is also important to understand what the cultural values are of these nations and how the DMO's perform on good governance.

Therefore I have come up with 4 questions that will provide me with the information that is required.

• How is the tourism governance organised in  France, Germany and the Netherlands?

• How is the tourism governance organised in Marseille, Bremen and the Netherlands?

• What are the cultural values of the employees in Marseille, Bremen  and Rotterdam?

• How do these organizations perform on good governance?

Concluding questions

The last point of my research is to discover whether and how national culture influences the performance of good governance in Bremen, Marseille and Rotterdam. Simultaneously, it is also important to interpret these links and the consequences on the day to day practice of the DMO's. Given that it concerns a cross-country research, it is also interesting to discover what the DMO's can learn from each other. Therefore I have come up with 3 concluding questions which will help me answer my main research question.

• Which results can be found by putting together the cultural values and the governance performance of the DMO's?

• What do these links mean in the day to day practice of the DMO's?

• What can the DMO's learn from each other using the cross-country results?

Figure 1: Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

Introduction

Personal interest

During my minor Making Places and Shaping Destinations  in the 4th year, I have attended classes that concerned destination governance. During these classes we had to read several academic journals which discussed the performance of governance in several nations around the globe. The class would discuss what they were doing well and what could be improved. We also looked at the cause of the good or bad performance of destination governance. During this course, one of the main things that tickled my particular interest was whether and how a nation's culture could be a reason why some DMO's and consequently destinations perform well  or perform badly. This particular question crossed my mind quite often. Therefore I have decided to take matters into my own hand and try to find out by using this subject for my thesis research.

By adopting three case studies in the cities of Bremen, Rotterdam and Marseilles I would like to find that out.  Even though all three countries are situated in Europe and there are common grounds, it could be said that there are differences between the cultures and the performance of governance.  

The employees of Bremer Touristik-Zentrale Gesellschaft für Marketing und Service mbH, Rotterdam Parners and Marseille Office de Tourisme et des Congrès will be asked about their cultural values and how they would rate the performance of good governance within their organisation. The combined results could indicate whether and  which cultural value(s) have an effect on the performance of good governance.

This thesis will go in depth about the already existing literature, the theories and frameworks that will be applied for my research, the case studies and the results and implications that derived from my empirical research.

Defining the problem and relevance for tourism sector

Introduction

For the last three decades organisational scholars have been concerned with culture because they believe organisational culture affects performance (Lee and Yu, 2004). However, it is generally acknowledged that culture works on a number of different levels and the organisational level is only one (Pizam, 1993). In the context of globalised industries it is relevant for managers, especially those of multi-national corporations operating in different regions, to be aware of the effect of national culture.  A nation's culture can be perceived as the mother of all path dependencies.  Figuratively, it means that a nation's culture might be more persistent than other factors believed to induce path dependence. Substantively, a nation's unique set of cultural values might indeed affect — in a chain of causality — the development of that nation's laws in general and its corporate governance system in particular. (Licht, 2001)

Relationship between culture and governance

On a broad scale the link between national culture and corporate governance has been established. Licht (2001) states culture influences the organizational policies through the values held by decision makers. He suggests culture contributes to the interpersonal relationship of individuals and institutions relationships and consequently changes the choice of corporate governance structure. Licht, Goldschmidt, & Schwartz (2004) study the effects of culture on three social norm of governance. They are: the rule of law, non-corruption level, and democratic accountability. La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer, & Vishny (1998) also found a noteworthy relationship between legal system and culture. De Jong & Semenov (2006) explain significant relationships between corporate control, ownership structure, protection of minority shareholders and cultural dimension of Hofstede. Li & Harrison (2008) used Hofstede model to explain the structure of corporate boards.

Problem and relevance

However, all this research have had a very broad set up. The authors used many and different institutions and companies to establish a link. This is understandable, given the fact one needs a lot of theoretical/empirical evidence to be acknowledged. Moreover, when it comes to a ‘fuzzy' concept as culture.  

Until this day, there has not been a research that establishes the link between national culture and good governance in the tourism sector. One can say that the tourism sector is a significant sector that represents a globalised industry with many multi-national corporations. As mentioned by Lee and Yu this stresses an urgency to understand the link between ones cultural values and corporate decision making. In particular the DMO's that work with different nationalities and backgrounds on a daily basis. Simultaneously, since recent times most European DMO's have changed into private-public partnerships due to a withdrawal of the national government.

This increases the responsibility of DMO's to perform well on good governance. It could be argued that the performance of a DMO and consequently the performance of a destination is influenced by its national culture. Having a simultaneous focus on cultural behaviour and performance will show to the DMO's which kind of behaviour establishes good governance and which behaviour has a reversed effect on the performance of good governance. The implications of this research will hopefully have a positive effect on the managerial decision making of the DMO's.

This thesis will use the theoretical background of other authors to establish this link in the tourism sector. Besides, there will be a simultaneous focus on what his means in practice. Having empirical proof is not sufficient enough to explain the link and help the destinations in understanding what this effect really means and what they could do in order to improve their performance as a destination.

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 Introduction into the chapter

The aim of this chapter is to find the already existing theories and research regarding the subject of my thesis. First of all, the chapter will explain more about the cultural aspect which will provide definitions and existing frameworks. Secondly, the chapter will provide definitions of governance, corporate governance, good governance and how Destination Management Organisations are related towards governance. Finally, it will explain the already existing relationship between national culture and governance which will also mention the methodology which is used by previous scholars.

2.2 Definitions of culture

 Culture is a very vague concept with manifold definitions (Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952).

 A common definition was given by the Dutch researcher Geert Hofstede (1984, p. 82):

Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or society from those of another. Culture consists of the patterns of thinking that parents transfer to their children, teachers to their students, friends to their friends, leaders to their followers, and followers to their leaders. Culture is reflected in the meanings people attach to various aspects of life; their way of looking at the world and their role in it; in their values, that is, in what they consider as ‘good' and ‘evil'; in their collective beliefs, what they consider as ‘true' and as ‘false'; in their artistic expressions, what they consider as ‘beautiful' and as ‘ugly'.

As it is illustrated in this definition, values must be established as the most fundamental element of culture. Values are to be understood as the central characteristics of a culture and can be employed to compare different cultures. This basic status of values is reflected in the functional chain of culture, from values across attitudes towards behaviour.  

Values shape attitudes which again form the behaviour of people. Accordingly, as cultural values take roots among individual members of a society, they shape social institutions and the general social environment.

Trompenaars and Turner defined culture as followed:

Culture is the characteristics and knowledge of a group of people, defined by everything from language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts. Defining culture as shared patterns of behaviours of the municipality that most of the times is learned by the socialization is not enough. A useful way of thinking about where culture comes from is the following: culture is the way in which a group of people solves problems and reconciles dilemmas. (Trompenaars & Hampden Turner, 2005)

They described several layers in which culture can be shown. The first layer is the first thing one notices when to establish a culture. The inside layers are less visible to the eye, but none of the less important because it establishes the very core existence of the group of people that share the same culture.

The first layer of culture is the first type people will recognise in a culture. These are the artefacts and products people use. It can also be defined as explicit culture. ‘It is the observable reality of the language, food, buildings, houses, monuments, agriculture, shrines, markets, fashion and art.

They are the symbols of a deeper level of culture'. (Trompenaars and Turner 2005)

The second layer represents the norms and the values of the group. ‘Norms are the mutual sense a group has of what is right and what is wrong. Norms can develop on a formal level as written laws and on informal level as social control. Values determine the definition of good and bad and are therefore closely related to the ideals shared by the group'.

The third layer represents the very core of human existence. The most basic value people strive for is survival. ‘Each group has organised themselves to find ways to deal most effectively with their environments, given their available resources. Groups of people organise themselves in such a way that they increase the effectiveness of their problem solving processes. Because different groups of people have developed in different geographic regions, they have also formed different sets of  logical assumptions. ‘

2.3 Frameworks of culture

Many scientists developed different frameworks to describe cultural paradigms, and to date there exist several alternative cultural models: the Hofstede (2001) cultural dimensions, the Schwartz (1994) culture-level analysis, the GLOBE study (House et al. 2004), the survey of cultural values (Smith et al. 2002), and the World Values Survey (Inglehart et al. 1998). Normally, such a framework consists of several cultural dimensions which can be used to categorize countries and cultures, respectively. Each dimension has two contrasting values. A group of people with the same culture will show a light preference towards one or the other value. The ‘score' on this dimension can take a numerical value, which can be statistically tested towards other numerical values, as for example corporate governance systems. (Breuer and Salzmann, 2005)

Schwartz

The Theory of Basic Human Values of Schwartz tries to measure universal values that are recognized throughout all major cultures. Schwartz's theory identifies ten such motivationally distinct values and further describes the dynamic relations amongst them. To better graphically portray these relationships, the theory arranges the ten values in a circular structure which have been placed in 4 underlying motivators.

Through survey Schwartz explored the preferences of people to certain values. Based on these preferences he created a cultural model that identifies three bipolar dimensions. These three contrasting dimensions are: conservatism versus autonomy, hierarchy versus egalitarianism and mastery versus harmony.

Conservatism versus Autonomy

The first basic issue confronting all societies is to define the nature of the relation between the individual and the group. (Conservatism) One pole of this dimension describes cultures in which the person is viewed as an entity who is embedded in the collective and finds meaning in life largely through social relationships, through identifying with the group and participating in its shared way of life. A high preference towards the values of tradition, security and conformity shows that there is a strong cultural lean towards conservatism. (Autonomy) The opposite pole of this dimension describes cultures in which the person is viewed as an autonomous, bounded entity who finds meaning in his or her own uniqueness, who seeks to express his or her own internal attributes (preferences, traits, feelings, motives) and is encouraged to do so. Schwartz describes two types of autonomy. (Intellectual Autonomy) A cultural emphasis on the desirability of individuals independently pursuing their own ideas and intellectual directions (curiosity, broadmindedness, creativity).  A high  preference towards the value of universalism shows a cultural lean towards intellectual autonomy. (Affective Autonomy) A cultural emphasis on the desirability of individuals independently pursuing affectively positive experience (pleasure, exciting life, varied life). A high preference towards the value stimulation shows a cultural lean towards affective autonomy.

Hierarchy versus Egalitarianism

The second basic issue that confronts all societies is to guarantee responsible behaviour that will preserve the social fabric. People must be induced to consider the welfare of others, coordinate with them, and thereby manage the unavoidable social interdependencies.

(Hierarchy) One polar resolution of this issue uses power differences, relying on hierarchical systems of ascribed roles to ensure socially responsible behaviour. People are socialised and sanctioned to comply with the obligations and rules attached to their roles.  A strong preference towards the values power, conformity and security show a cultural preference towards hierarchy.

(Egalitarianism) An alternative solution to the problem of responsible social behaviour is to induce societal members to recognise one another as moral equals who share basic interests as human beings. People are socialised to internalise a commitment to voluntary cooperation with others and to feel concern for everyone's welfare. A high preference towards the values self-direction, universalism and benevolence show a cultural preference towards egalitarianism.

Mastery versus Harmony

The third basic issue that confronts all societies is the relation of humankind to the natural and social world.(Mastery) One response is actively to master and change the world, to assert control, bend it to our will, and exploit it in order to further personal or group interests. A high preference towards the values achievement, self-direction, hedonism and stimulation shows a cultural lean towards mastery. (Harmony) An opposing resolution of this issue is to accept the world as it is, trying to fit in rather than to change or exploit it. A high preference to the values universalism and benevolence shows a cultural lean towards harmony.

Hofstede

The model of Hofstede consists of five dimensions.  Again the model consists of bipolar dimensions same as Schwartz model.

Power Distance Index (PDI)

This dimension expresses the degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. The fundamental issue here is how a society handles inequalities among people. People in societies that score high on power distance accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification.

In societies with a low power distance, people strive to equalize the distribution of power and demand justification for inequalities of power.

Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV)

The high side of this dimension, called individualism, can be defined as a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of only themselves and their immediate families. The low side of this dimension, collectivism, represents a preference for a

tightly-knit framework in society in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. A society's position on this dimension is reflected in whether people's self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “we.”

Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS)

The masculinity side of this dimension represents a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material rewards for success. Society at large is more competitive.

Its opposite, femininity, stands for a preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life. Society at large is more consensus-oriented.

Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)

The uncertainty avoidance dimension expresses the degree to which the members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. The fundamental issue here is how a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen? Countries exhibiting a strong uncertainty avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. Low uncertainty avoidance societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles.

Through survey Schwartz explored the preferences of people to certain values. Based on these preferences he created a cultural model that identifies three bipolar dimensions. These three contrasting dimensions are: conservatism versus autonomy, hierarchy versus egalitarianism and mastery versus harmony.

Conservatism versus Autonomy

The first basic issue confronting all societies is to define the nature of the relation between the individual and the group. (Conservatism) One pole of this dimension describes cultures in which the person is viewed as an entity who is embedded in the collective and finds meaning in life largely through social relationships, through identifying with the group and participating in its shared way of life. A high preference towards the values of tradition, security and conformity shows that there is a strong cultural lean towards conservatism. (Autonomy) The opposite pole of this dimension describes cultures in which the person is viewed as an autonomous, bounded entity who finds meaning in his or her own uniqueness, who seeks to express his or her own internal attributes (preferences, traits, feelings, motives) and is encouraged to do so. Schwartz describes two types of autonomy. (Intellectual Autonomy) A cultural emphasis on the desirability of individuals independently pursuing their own ideas and intellectual directions (curiosity, broadmindedness, creativity).  A high  preference towards the value of universalism shows a cultural lean towards intellectual autonomy. (Affective Autonomy) A cultural emphasis on the desirability of individuals independently pursuing affectively positive experience (pleasure, exciting life, varied life). A high preference towards the value stimulation shows a cultural lean towards affective autonomy.

Hierarchy versus Egalitarianism

The second basic issue that confronts all societies is to guarantee responsible behaviour that will preserve the social fabric. People must be induced to consider the welfare of others, coordinate with them, and thereby manage the unavoidable social interdependencies.

(Hierarchy) One polar resolution of this issue uses power differences, relying on hierarchical systems of ascribed roles to ensure socially responsible behaviour. People are socialised and sanctioned to comply with the obligations and rules attached to their roles.  A strong preference towards the values power, conformity and security show a cultural preference towards hierarchy.

(Egalitarianism) An alternative solution to the problem of responsible social behaviour is to induce societal members to recognise one another as moral equals who share basic interests as human beings. People are socialised to internalise a commitment to voluntary cooperation with others and to feel concern for everyone's welfare. A high preference towards the values self-direction, universalism and benevolence show a cultural preference towards egalitarianism.

Mastery versus Harmony

The third basic issue that confronts all societies is the relation of humankind to the natural and social world.(Mastery) One response is actively to master and change the world, to assert control, bend it to our will, and exploit it in order to further personal or group interests. A high preference towards the values achievement, self-direction, hedonism and stimulation shows a cultural lean towards mastery. (Harmony) An opposing resolution of this issue is to accept the world as it is, trying to fit in rather than to change or exploit it. A high preference to the values universalism and benevolence shows a cultural lean towards harmony.

Hofstede

The model of Hofstede consists of five dimensions.  Again the model consists of bipolar dimensions same as Schwartz model.

Power Distance Index (PDI)

This dimension expresses the degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. The fundamental issue here is how a society handles inequalities among people. People in societies that score high on power distance accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification.

In societies with a low power distance, people strive to equalize the distribution of power and demand justification for inequalities of power.

Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV)

The high side of this dimension, called individualism, can be defined as a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of only themselves and their immediate families. The low side of this dimension, collectivism, represents a preference for a

tightly-knit framework in society in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. A society's position on this dimension is reflected in whether people's self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “we.”

Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS)

The masculinity side of this dimension represents a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material rewards for success. Society at large is more competitive.

Its opposite, femininity, stands for a preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life. Society at large is more consensus-oriented.

Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)

The uncertainty avoidance dimension expresses the degree to which the members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. The fundamental issue here is how a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen? Countries exhibiting a strong uncertainty avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. Low uncertainty avoidance societies maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than principles.

Comparison of Schwartz and Hofstede

Hofstede and Schwartz explain the cultural dimensions in a comprehensive manner. Despite some conceptual differences, the cultural dimensions by Hofstede and Schwartz demonstrate some similarities.  Salzmann and Breuer (2005) compare and contrast Hofstede and Schwartz cultural dimensions. They illustrate that individualism and collectivism have common characteristics with autonomy versus embeddedness, since both explain the relationship between individual and group.

The difference would be the values like social order and freedom are not explained by individualism and collectivism. Another dimension of Hofstede; power distance, which explains the level of inequality in a society overlaps with hierarchy versus egalitarianism in Schwartz model.

However, the values such as social justice and social power are not explained in Hofstede model. Masculinity and Feminity might be related to mastery as both emphasize assertiveness, activity and ambition. However, mastery does not include a contrast to feminine values.

Uncertainty avoidance is another dimension of Hofstede's cultural dimension which is the tolerance level of the society for uncertainty and ambiguity and refers to individual's search for truth.

Uncertainty avoidance is comparable with Harmony dimension of Schwartz's model as both advocate harmony and order. The difference between these two dimensions is that harmony refers to fitting into nature, whereas uncertainty avoidance refers to harmony by a vigorous control of uncertainty.

Although, Hofstede's theoretical framework has been accepted by many scholars internationally to explain cultural differences, Schwartz's framework seems also eligible as he tries to overcome some problems with Hofstede's model. He tried to develop a more comprehensive framework that has been empirically validated. He derived his framework from three basic problems that confront societies including; the nature of the relation between individuals and groups, encouraging responsible behaviour to safeguard the social structure and the management of social and natural work. (Rafiee and Sarabdeen)

Criticism towards cultural models

Cultural models appear to overlook the innate ‘fuzziness' of culture. As already mentioned above, culture consists of several layers. An individual has clear and independent value sets, for each group he/she belongs to. Moreover, most societies these days possess more than one culture, which increases the complexity of the clarity of cultural models.

Catalin (2012) describes the cultural haziness to be two fold. First ‘group members are unlikely to share identical sets of attitudes, beliefs and so on but rather show family resemblance'.

Secondly, Catalin proposes that there is some overlap between one's different cultural sets, which allows us to act socially. This blend occurs at both micro level (individual) and at macro level (society). Hence, the concept of layers, which metaphorically can be represented as separate coats one wears and one takes off one by one, may not be adequate and instead one's multicultural being is better symbolized as a single knitted coat with different types of thread. (Catalin 2012)

The cultural framework that will be used for this thesis

Although there has been scepticism and criticism for these cultural models, for its simplicity, until now there has not been a good alternative for the empirical measurement for culture. Since I will use empirical methods to explain the link between cultural values and governance indicators, one of these models will be used for this research.

In order to find out what the cultural values are of the employees from the DMO's, the employees will be asked questions that are based on the cultural values of Schwartz. As already mentioned in the literature review, there are several cultural frameworks to choose from. However, although commonly used, Hofstede's framework has been criticised quite often by other academics.

Schwartz's model overcomes some of the shortcomings of Hofstede and is based on more theoretical and empirical evidence. Needless to say, that therefore I choose the values of Schwartz.

The employees will be asked whether they oppose to the principle or whether they find this value of extreme importance to them. This will be done using an 8 point scale. An 8 point scale enables the respondents to answer the questions with a sufficient amount of nuance.

Answers to these questions will ultimately show  the following:

-  A preference to conservatism, intellectual or effective autonomy

-  A preference to hierarchy or egalitarianism

-  A preference to  mastery or harmony.  

2.4 Governance

Governance concerns “how societies are governed, ruled or steered” (Wan & Bramwell, 2015, p. 988). Traditionally, governments acquire the power to steer. According to Jamal and Getz (1995, p. 193), “no single organization or individual can exert direct control over the destination's development process” because each actor in the tourism sector holds a certain degree of power, resources and access to networks. Governance entails a set of rules and practices, and the outcomes affect who wins and who loses in accessing resources (Howlett et al., 2009). Governance changes over time as it adapts to evolving societal circumstances, such as because of the shifting influence of influential actors or of hegemonic values (Dredge & Jenkins, 2007).

Corporate governance

In broad terms, corporate governance refers to the way in which a corporations is directed, administered, and controlled. Corporate governance also concerns the relationships among the various internal and external stakeholders involved as well as the governance processes designed to help a corporation achieve its goals. Of prime importance are those mechanisms and controls that are designed to reduce or eliminate the principal-agent problem. (H. Kent Baker and Ronald Anderson, Corporate Governance: A Synthesis of Theory, Research, and Practice, 2010)

Modes of governance

There are many typologies of modes of governance that can be defined. Wan and Bramwell (2015) have compiled a set of modes of governance that can be applied to tourist destinations which  are summarized in the table below. Based on Lange et al.'s (2013) three dimensions of different modes of governance and on literature concerning government's potential importance for governance, a set of four analytical dimensions of modes of governance are identified. They are used to organize parts of the subsequent analysis.

1)Who are the key actors? (the politics dimension).

2)What are the policy agendas/objectives of the key actors? (the policy dimension).

3)What are the rules of interaction? (the polity dimension).

4)What are the roles and strategies of government?

There are many typologies of modes of governance in the political science literature.

Combining the work of Pierre (1999) with DiGaetano and Strom (2003), Wan and Bramwell propose seven modes of governance: managerial, corporatist, pro-growth, welfare, clientelistic, pluralist, and populist mode. Gill and Williams (2011) argue that the welfare mode is less relevant for tourism destinations as it occurs primarily in declining industrial cities where welfare payments comprise the main capital influx.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

This essay was submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, . Available from:< https://www.essaysauce.com/essays/marketing/2017-7-24-1500901578.php > [Accessed 18.10.19].