BEYOND THE EUROTRIP:

TOURISM AS MEANS TO

EUROPEAN UNION SOFT POWER

Submitted by

PALLAVI SHARMA In partial fulfilment of the requirements of

the Master of Arts degree in International Relations

Faculty of Social Sciences, South Asian University

Year of submission: 2014

i

DECLARATION

The dissertation titled ‘ Beyond the Eurotrip: Tourism as Means to European Union

Soft Power’ submitted by me in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Master

of Arts degree in International Relations at the Faculty of Social Sciences, South

Asian University is my own work. The dissertation has not been submitted for any

other degree of this University or any other university.

I declare that no part of this dissertation has been plagiarized. I take responsibility

for the same.

PALLAVI SHARMA 15TH

APRIL 2014

Name of the Student Signature Date

CERTIFICATE

We recommend that this dissertation be placed before the examiners for evaluation.

Signature: Signature:

Siddharth Mallavarapu Dhananjay Tripathi

Chairperson Supervisor

Department of International Relations (DIR) DIR, FSS

Faculty of Social Sciences (FSS)

South Asian University

New Delhi

ii

CONTENTS Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................. iii

List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ v

Introduction: Core Concepts - Power, Soft Power, Public Diplomacy and Tourism ............................................................................................................................ 1-8

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

II. Changing International Order, Globalisation and Power Politics ..................... 2

III. Tourism as means to Soft Power: the case of European Union ........................ 4

IV. Public Diplomacy ................................................................................................................ 7

V. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 8

European Union Tourism Policy: An Overview ............................................... 9-18

I. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9

II. Tourism Policy and its Objectives................................................................................ 10

i) Policies governing domestic tourism ..................................................................... 12

ii) Tourism for the International Community ......................................................... 13

III. Public Diplomacy and the Emergence as the Leading Tourist Destination: European Union ....................................................................................................................... 15

i) International Tourism Trends................................................................................... 16

ii) Domestic Tourism Trends ......................................................................................... 16

IV. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 18

Assessing the European Tourism as a Source of Soft Power .................... 19-28

I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 19

II. The Macro Level Analysis: Tourism policy as Public Diplomacy..................... 20

III. The Micro Level Analysis: Tourism policy as an effort to build common “EU-ropean” identity .............................................................................................................. 24

IV. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 27

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 29-32

I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 29

II. Hypotheses and Research Questions.......................................................................... 29

III. Methods and Measurements ........................................................................................ 30

IV. Establishing the “EuroTrip” as a Brand .................................................................... 30

V. Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 31

References .................................................................................................................. 33-38

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This is a Master’s degree dissertation on European Union Tourism Policy taken

as a source of Soft Power, submitted to the Department of International

Relations, South Asian University. With the completion of this research work, I

would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to some of those, whose constant

support made the research a success.

I take this opportunity, first and foremost, to express my deepest gratitude and

appreciation to my supervisor, Dr, Dhananjay Tripathi, of the Faculty of Social

Science, South Asian University, without the enduring patience and constant

guidance of whose, this research would not have been possible.

I would further like to convey my gratefulness to the chairperson of the

Department of International Relations, Dr. Siddhartha Mallavarapu and all the

faculty members of the Department in South Asian University for providing me

with this great learning opportunity. I would also like to take this opportunity to

mention Dr. Jayashree Vivekanandan for familiarizing me with some of the core

concepts and theories used in my research, and Dr. Sanjeev Kumar for guiding

me to understand and choose the research methods that I have applied. I would

also like to extend my thankfulness to my fellow classmates for their unending

support and encouragement.

My gratitude also goes to the South Asian University library for providing me

with the research materials, my colleagues from other Departments of the

University who have enlightened me with their varied insights on the topic,

friends, family and relatives for their love and encouragement throughout the

research period, all of which made it possible for me to complete this

dissertation on time.

Last, but not the least, I would like to pour my sincere gratitude to all the unseen

forces that have missed my specific mention, for the contribution towards this

research work.

Pallavi Sharma

April, 2014

iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AU- African Union

CAP- Common Agricultural Policy

CEPS- Centre for European Policy Studies

EU- European Union

EUROMED- Euro–Mediterranean Partnership

IR- International Relations (discipline)

MERCOSUR- Mercado Comum do Sul

NGOs- Non-Governmental Organisations

OECD- Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

UN- United Nations

UNESCO- United Nations Economic, Social, and Cultural Organisation

UNWTO- United Nations World Travel Organisation

UK- United Kingdom

WTO- World Trade Organisation

v

LIST OF TABLES

List Page

1. Table 2.1: EU and the Schengen Members………………………………………..11

2. Table 2.2: Tourism Trends in few of the EU states…………………………….15

3. Table 2.3: International Tourism Trends………………………………………….16

4. Table 2.4: Domestic Tourism Trends………………………………………………..17

vi

1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Core Concepts - Power, Soft Power, Public

Diplomacy and Tourism

“If we would had to do it all again, I would start with culture.”

-Jean Monnet (cited in Richards 2005, p. 10)

I. Introduction

Tourism as a social and cultural phenomenon comes with a great capacity, not

just with its contribution to leisure and entertainment, but, also to the economy

by bringing in revenue and generating employment opportunities to men and

women both, and even to politics. On one hand, where much of literature is

available on tourism and its dynamics with economics, environment, and leisure

and recreation, on the other, its dynamics with politics has been under-

researched. With an attempt to link these two interdisciplinary fields, this

research seeks to tie a knot between tourism and politics. The core arguments

to be found in this research work draws from the both the disciplines of tourism

and politics.

Taking the case of Europe, where mass tourism was first experienced (Cohen

1984); this dissertation has looked into the Tourism Policy as adopted by the

European Union (EU) and has made an attempt to place it within the broader

framework of politics by outlining tourism as a source of soft power for the EU.

Europe, after the formation of the EU has created a Schengen zone consisting of

26 European Countries (24 member states of the EU and 2 non-member states)

for which a common tourism policy has been established that seeks to make

tourism easily accessible. Today, EU stands as the leading region for tourist

destination with growing number of tourist arrivals each year (UNWTO 2013).

This research will look into the unique policy that has been adopted by the EU

and try to illustrate the close link that tourism has with politics. The main

purpose of this dissertation is to demonstrate that tourism has been a great

source of soft power for the EU. Time and again the “EuroTrip” has been heard

of as a vacation plan. The popularity of this “EuroTrip” today has grown so

much so that it has almost become a brand as a tourist vacation spot. Is the EU

2

tourism policy a conscious attempt to boost its soft power or has the adopted

policy taken its own course to enhance EU soft power, is the question that this

research will seek to look into. Therefore, to find out what is it that makes

Europe the leading tourist destination and what outcome it has and can serve is

the core idea behind this research.

There are two levels into which this thesis will look into with respect to the EU’s

tourism policy. One will seek to find out the power value of tourism policy at the

micro level by looking into the relationship between EU as an institution and the

individuals of the member states and how the tourism policy as adopted by the

EU has helped the citizens of the region build a sense of common identity, the

lack of which, stands today as the greatest challenge to the EU. At the macro

level, the research will seek to find out the soft power that EU as a region has

over foreign nationals by evaluating the external perceptions of the common

mass in states outside of the EU.

To move forward so as create the required link between tourism and politics, it

is first important to understand the core concepts that the research will revolve

around.

II. Changing International Order, Globalisation and Power Politics

The International system has taken its shape from the consistent struggle for

power between states. Hans Morgenthau defines international politics itself as

“a struggle for power” (Rasheed 1995, p. 95). Power according to Mann (1986,

p. 6) is “the ability to pursue and attain goals through mastery of one’s

environment.” Weber (1968 cited Mann 1986, p. 6) giving importance to social

relationships and contexts, defines power as “the probability that one actor

within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite

resistance.” In the discipline of International Relations (IR), power is suggested

to be one actor’s control and influence over the actions and decisions of another

actor. Robert Dahl provides with IR’s understanding of power as the capability

of “A causing B to do something that B otherwise would not have done”

(Baldwin 2002, p. 177).

The struggle for power in international politics has been dominated by the

military and economic capabilities. With the evolving nature of politics

however, the international system in the contemporary era has taken its form

3

by the intensification of intra-state relations due to growing interdependence

brought about by liberal open-market economies, establishment of “partially

centralized management of power” in the form of international organisations,

and advancement of technology (Rasheed 1995, p. 95).

The strengthened intra-state relations due the intensification of globalization

has made the use of military and economic power by states, or what Joseph S.

Nye calls Hard Power, very risky for practice because it entails with it the

danger of sabotaging or jeopardizing the interdependent relations which can

lead to its own loss. The language of military power has dominated important

aspects of international politics for a very long time and even till date holds

significance in doing world politics. However, as we have entered a new world

order of interdependence, the role of military force is declining. Keohane and

Nye (2012, p. 18) argue that “fears of attack in general have declined, and fears

of attack by one another are virtually non-existent.” In the era of globalization

when each and every nation-state is interconnected and tied in a relationship of

asymmetrical interdependence, the use of military and economic coercion

becomes highly undesirable. Now, “communication, education and persuasion

have become major techniques of foreign relations at the expense of military

force” (Gilboa 2008, p. 57). To put in simple words, the phenomenon of

globalization has made it almost imperative to use alternate ways to do politics

in the international system which involves the strategy of persuasion and

attraction.

On globalisation, Kissinger has stated that, “Now we are entering into a new era.

Old international patterns are crumbling; old slogans are uninstructive; old

solutions are unavailing. The world has become interdependent in economics,

in communications, in human aspirations.” (Keohane and Nye 2012, p. 20).

Therefore, because of this mutual benefits and costs that states share in a

globalized international order, the use of hard power can result in costly

outcomes. For instance, the growth of nuclear capable states has increased from

the end of the cold war. So the use of war to do power politics can have adverse

effect for not only the states involved but also other states. Similarly, use of

economic sanctions can lead to blockage of trade between states. This is how

the phenomenon of globalization has created new dichotomies and dilemmas in

doing power politics at the international level.

4

The international system has long witnessed the power of soft diplomacy since

the end of the two World Wars that brought along with it rivalry between the

two remaining superpower. Dance, mostly by the United States, was used as

cultural diplomacy to entice rest of the world to liberal democracy by promoting

liberal dance forms with explicit themes like sexuality, equality among races,

individuality and so on (Prevots 1998). This cultural diplomacy has power of its

own. Nye calls it the power of “seduction” that leads states to “co-opt into

wanting what you want” (Nye 2004, p. 7). The power of “seduction”, soft or

cultural diplomacy is what Nye terms as “Soft Power”. As opposed to the power

of military of economic capability which is called hard power, soft power has no

risk of adverse effects to it. Hence, in the age of globalisation it is more viable to

use soft power as means to achieve the desired outcome.

III. Tourism as means to Soft Power: the case of European Union

Nye, who first coined the term “Soft Power” in the early 1990s, Nye (2004, p. 8)

outlines three main sources of soft power:

a. Culture

b. Values and Institutions

c. Foreign policy

Taking on Weber that “man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he

himself has spun”, Geertz holds culture to be “those webs” of significance that

man has created to give fuller meaning to his existence (Geertz 2000, p. 1).

Culture, is therefore, every aspect of human life that shapes its being from food,

music, values, lifestyle, to literature, art, and sports. As borders of nation-states

are getting distorted as a result of globalization, cultures of different

communities are transcending across societies. The importance of tourism in

understanding, experiencing and imbibing culture is much obvious and hence,

with the evolution in the tourism industry, cultural consumption through it has

also seen a wide growth (Richards 2005).

Tourism is based on the idea of traveling to various destinations, near or far, in

order to derive pleasure out of one’s leisure time. Tourism is defined by

Robinson (2011, p. 1462) as “a discretionary mass leisure practice of the

developed world, is built on technological capacities, and has largely flourished

5

as a liberating practice within capitalist societies, it can be seen as both a

product and project of modernity.” However, now with the advent of easy and

cheap transportation, tourism as a phenomenon is becoming popular over a

wider range of people and it has now changed “from an elite pursuit to a basic

leisure need of the masses” (Richards 2005, p. 13). As tourists visit different

destinations, they engage with, live and experience the culture of another

society/community. Travel intensely shapes one’s cultural experience many a

times leaving psychological, emotive, sensitive, intellectual, aesthetic, and

spiritual impacts (Stebbins 1997).

As Nye places in the importance of culture as a source of soft power and

Richards attributes tourism its importance by considering it a powerful

phenomenon for consuming culture, tourism strategy adopted by nation-states

can emerge as a substantial tool in achieving soft power. Tourism policy,

drawing from Nye’s argument, can be placed within foreign policy (a source that

leads to soft power) that will eventually enhance cultural (another source of soft

power) consumption by foreign nationals.

After the end of the Second World War the dominant role played by modern

Westphalian state began to change (Buzan and Waever 2003). Modern State, as

given by Buzan and Waever (2003) are characterised by rigid government

control of almost all dimensions encompassing the state system, are driven by

the sacred notion of sovereignty based on territoriality and military occupies

one of the most dominant role in the state. Emergence of postmodern states

however, does not go back too far a period. These types of state “retain the

trappings of modernity such as borders, sovereignty and national identity” but

in realms like economics and culture, they adopt a flexible system of interaction

(Buzan and Waever 2003, p. 23). The EU can thus, be seen as a project of

postmodernity. The EU has emerged from the process of regional integration as

a combination of an “intergovernmental organisation and a transnational polity”

(Warleigh 2004, p. 2). The traditional Westphalian state system and sovereignty

based on territoriality does not hold true for the EU as a global actor anymore.

The EU member-states have come together and adopted a common market and

currency, the European Parliament, the Schengen Visa free zone, Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP), referred to in this dissertation as the ‘regional

commons’. These integrated institutions and the adopted policies as the

6

‘regional commons’ of the EU, makes it a unique postmodern actor in world

politics.

Europe has one of the most assorted cultural heritages and is “one of the oldest

and most important generators of tourism” for the EU (Thorburn 1986 cited

Richards 2005, p. 10). Understanding the diverse cultural heritage and a wide

range of tourist attractions and their scope, Bernadini (1992 cited Richards

2005, p. 10) urges the European commission policy makers to give priority

attention to the European tourism industry. Today, with the tourism strategy

adopted, the EU stands as the world’s top tourist destination (European

Commission 2013, UNWTO 2013). This will be discussed further in the next

chapter in greater depth.

Tourism, which was earlier considered a phenomenon that the elites and the

capitalist class engaged in, is now getting more and more diffused among a huge

range of population. As greater audience has emerged as consumers of tourism,

even the trends of tourism are undergoing a change. Experiential tourism is

now coming to take on to the stage. Travellers are now looking to participate in

“experience-based” tourism (Smith 2006). The concept of serious leisure is

gaining prominence as there is increased number of individuals who have

developed “special interest [in] tourism based on the search for and

participation in new and deep cultural experience” (Stebbins 1996, p. 949).

These developments in the trends of tourism have become almost

overwhelming that travellers are now going as far as “to find a career there

acquiring and expressing a combination of its special skills, knowledge, and

experience” (Stebbins 1997, p. 451). This combination of leisure with

seriousness has driven tourism to become a creative industry which has further

resulted in improvement of abilities and skills of travellers (Richards 2011).

Travellers as they explore many destinations, do not just engage with cultural

tourism by visiting heritage sites, but also engage in adventure activities like

horse riding, scuba diving, paragliding, bunjee jumping, hiking, cycling, skiing

and recently also engaging with local festivals that have gone international such

as the North Sea Jazz Festival, Edinburg Festival, Oktober Fest and so on (World

Expeditions 2013; Richards 2008). These activities contribute to a great extent

in development of skills and performance that Richards refers to.

7

Such developments in the tourism sector and the increasing prominence of the

travel industry in shaping lifestyles, and therefore, identities at large make

tourism extremely powerful in projection and presentation of cultural values.

The EU has some of the oldest and the most attractive cultural heritage in the

world, finding itself with an edge in the tourism industry. Considering the scope

and influence of the tourism industry at the global stage, member states of the

EU have gone on to develop a huge number of tourist attractions which include

adventure sports for travellers, innumerable museums, churches, art galleries,

festivals, and cultural events, constructing itself as one of the most striking

tourist destinations for cultural consumption (Richards 2005).

IV. Public Diplomacy

Through these various developments of the travel and tourist industry by the

member states, the EU has attracted not just growing number of foreign

nationals for cultural consumption to the region but also citizens of the member

states of the EU for cultural exchange and identity construction. In the modern

day of information technology when the common public plays a major role in

international relations with their power to contribute to political issues like

legitimacy and recognition, through modes of social media, the concept of public

diplomacy becomes highly important. Public Diplomacy, in the most general

sense, is taken to mean, “direct communication with foreign peoples with the

aim of affecting their thinking and, ultimately, that of their governments”

(Malone 1985 cited Gilboa 2008, p. 57). The tourism policy adopted by the EU

which is easily accessible for travel, economically viable and fulfilling to the

leisure needs of the public, has become a tool of public diplomacy (the claim for

which, in this dissertation, will be substantiated in the chapters to follow)

through which the institution has established direct relation with the public of

its member states and foreign states as well. This easily accessible tourism of

the EU has not just helped in presenting its attractive culture to the people, but

also in “region branding”. We often hear people say that they are going for a

“Euro Trip” for vacation. The popularity of this “Euro Trip” is what can be called

a brand of the tourism industry.

8

V. Conclusion

As discussed above, we can comprehend the immense value that tourism has

when seen within the framework of politics. The two fields are intertwined to

the extent that it has great capacity in shaping identities and influencing culture.

Further in the following chapters, the EU tourism policy at large will be

discussed by analyzing its strategies that has been adopted by the policy makers

and the impacts that the strategy has had over the region.

The second chapter will, firstly, give an overview of the policy of tourism

adopted by the EU and discuss the main objectives that the EU relates with

tourism in the region. Following, it will highlight the tourism trends across all

the regions of the globe at large, and that of the EU in particular by providing

with statistics and figures of the tourism industry, both domestic and

international.

The third chapter deals with analyzing the impact of the espoused tourism

policy of the EU on foreign nationals and how it contributes to shaping of

perception of the EU among these external nationals. The chapter will also

evaluate the impact of tourism on the citizens of the member states of EU as

well, with the main focus being the creation of a sense of common identity

based on solidarity among the citizens.

The final chapter will give a concluding note on the entire research work and

strive to answer the question of why tourism has been analyzed for establishing

the ‘EuroTrip’ as a brand in the tourism industry. Finally, the dissertation will

end by scrutinizing whether the hypotheses observed is verified or not and

return to establish a link between the core research question of whether

tourism serves as a source of soft power, both internationally and domestically,

for the EU. It will then end by outlining some of limitations in the EU, to which

tourism has not served as an answer.

9

CHAPTER 2

European Union Tourism Policy: An Overview

“Europe is the World’s no. 1 Tourist Destination, with the highest density and

diversity of tourist attraction.”

- (European Commission 2013)

I. Introduction

The EU is a mixture of both intergovernmental regional organisation and a

“transnational polity”, in the sense that, it has a legal personality as an

international organisation and at the same time, acts as a parliamentary body

with the capacity to make decision on behalf of the member states (Warleigh

2004). Therefore, it has emerged as a unique system. It is not a modern

Westphalian state with stiff government control of almost all spaces that

encompasses the state system and is not driven by the sacrosanct concept of

sovereignty based on territoriality, but rather the EU has the characteristics of a

postmodern state. It is a type of state that continues to “retain the trappings of

modernity such as borders, sovereignty and national identity” but in realms like

economics and cultural jurisdiction, they have embraced a flexible system of

collaboration (Buzan and Waever 2003, p. 24). The EU can, thus, be seen as a

project of postmodernity which has emerged from the process of regional

integration.

This process of integration has led to uncommon developments in the

functioning of the EU as a global actor and has also affected the working of its

member states. As a result, the sovereignty of the member states have been

diluted to a certain extent which is evident in number of ‘regional commons’

that characterizes the EU. To illustrate few are the common market and the

currency- Euro, the European Parliament, the Schengen Visa free zone, Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP).While counting about the ‘regional common’ in regard

to the EU there is another important common feature of the EU which is often

ignored. It is the tourism policy of the member states. This policy was brought

under the direct purview of the EU through Article 176 B, treaty of Lisbon, 2007.

10

According to this section of the treaty, the EU will support the member states in

the tourism sector through legislation and policy formation for complementing

the actions of tourism within the member states (Treaty of Lisbon 2007, p. 89).

As discussed in the previous chapter, tourism has always played an important

role in the economic sector by its contributions to the creation of employment

opportunities, development, and generation of foreign revenue. In this context,

tourism in the EU has been given immense importance as the policy makers

continue to develop the region’s policy framework for the growth and

improvement of tourism (European Commission 2013). As a result, the member

states have sought to work in partnership by involving local communities, both

private and public firms and their team of employees in the tourism sector

(Verheugen 2005). This partnership has therefore, led to the adoption of a

common tourism policy for the EU in 2010 which has been outlined by the

European Commission. The policy is unique in its characteristic and

consequently, appears attractive. In the next part of this chapter we will focus

on the tourism policy of the EU.

II. Tourism Policy and its Objectives

Firstly, to start with, member states of the EU, barring Ireland and the United

Kingdom, (and including four non-EU members i.e. Iceland, Switzerland,

Liechtenstein and Norway) have ratified the Schengen agreement that was

initially signed by 8 members in 1985 in a village in Luxembourg named

Schengen, thus receiving its name, the Schengen zone, the policies of which

came to force in 1995 within which borders have been dismantled and free flow

of goods and individuals are permitted (Riegert 2013). Table 2.1 below shows

the members of the Schengen zone.

11

Table 2.1- EU and the Schengen Members

Countries Status

Germany EU, Schengen Zone- founding member

France EU, Schengen Zone- founding member

United Kingdom EU, Not a signatory to the Schengen agreement

Luxembourg EU, Schengen Zone- founding member

Netherlands EU, Schengen Zone- founding member

Austria EU, Schengen signatory

Italy EU, Schengen signatory

Denmark EU, Schengen signatory

Finland EU, Schengen signatory

Croatia EU, to join the Schengen later

Malta EU, Schengen signatory

Latvia EU, Schengen signatory

Lithuania EU, Schengen signatory

Spain EU, Schengen signatory

Switzerland Non-EU, Schengen signatory

Greece EU, Schengen signatory

Poland EU, Schengen signatory

Hungary EU, Schengen signatory

Liechtenstein Non-EU, Schengen signatory

Iceland Non-EU, Schengen signatory

Portugal EU, Schengen signatory

Norway Non-EU, Schengen signatory

Estonia EU, Schengen signatory

Belgium EU, Schengen Zone- founding member

Czech Republic EU, Schengen signatory

Slovakia EU, Schengen signatory

Slovenia EU, Schengen signatory

Sweden EU, Schengen signatory

Ireland EU, Not a signatory to the Schengen agreement

Cyprus EU, to join the Schengen later

Bulgaria EU, to join the Schengen later

Romania EU, to join the Schengen later

Source: European commission, (2008). URL: [

http://biblio.ucv.ro/bib_web/bib_pdf/EU_books/0056.pdf ]

The Schengen agreement exempts the citizens of the member states that are

signatories to the Schengen agreement from undergoing the process of visa

requirements and the citizens can not only travel, but work, marry and move

12

around the Schengen zone without any barring. Even foreign nationals

travelling to countries within the Schengen Zone require one visa through

which they gain access for travel to any of the member states, either by rail

route, road or air, and now also on bicycle. This makes travel within the

Schengen zone for citizens of the member states, as well as foreign nationals

highly feasible and hence, easily accessible and affordable for travel purpose.

The European Commission in 2010 adopted the current tourism policy for the

region by outlining the main objectives that the policy seeks to serve. They are:

a) To contribute to the sustainable development of the region

b) To provide with increased employment opportunities for its citizens

c) To advance and promote the region’s cultural and natural heritage

d) To contribute to the shaping of a common European identity

(European Commission 2013).

Within the EU member states, the tourism policies that have been implemented

effects the domestic and international audience differently. Hence, the policies

have been divided into two categories based on their effects on the domestic

and international audience.

i) Policies governing domestic tourism

Keeping the above objectives in mind, the policy makers at the European

Commission have sought to establish tourism in a manner that the sector not

only becomes a source of income and employment throughout the year but also

is easily accessible to the travellers for leisure and work both. Some of the

policies adopted by the European commission have been outlined in the

following subdivisions.

To promote low-season, accessible tourism for a wide range of citizens, the

commission has developed policies like:

a) Calypso: Is a policy implemented by the European Commission to promote

low season tourism. Calypso aims at supporting the disadvantaged citizens of

the EU by helping them to make vacation trips within the member states. It

mainly seeks to support the underprivileged youngsters, people with financial

or any other kind of pressures, people who physically challenged with

disabilities, and old citizens who are above 65 years of age (European

Commission 2013).Calypso however, not only promotes low season tourism but

also gives less popular places with high tourist value a chance to endorse itself

13

as a tourist destinations (European commission 2013). As a result, these places

emerge as important sites for not just cultural consumption but also for

exchange of values and ideas that contribute to a great extent to shaping of

identities.

b) Senior Tourism Initiative: This policy has mainly been adopted for citizens

above the age of 55 who have unrestricted time and the economic backing to

enjoy holiday plans. Through this policy, senior citizens of the EU are

encouraged to travel transnationally through suitable packages that are

adopted mainly by keeping their age group in mind. These packages are brought

forward to this group of citizens through the collaboration of the private and

public sector (European Commission 2013). The main contribution of this

policy, other than its economic benefit and enhancement of tourist activities

during off season, is that they foster a sense of “European citizenship” as these

sections of the citizens receive benefits and privileges in the form of leisure

fulfilment along with different groups of people from different member states.

This contribution is highly significant at a time when the common identity crisis

of what it means to be a “citizen” of the EU is much contested and debated

amongst the citizens of the member states.

ii) Tourism for the International Community

As these above mention tourism may appear attractive to the citizens within the

EU, the European Commission has also adopted various policies that reach out

with their appeal even to foreign nationals who reap the benefit of such policies

with a much of fervour. The policies given below are those that affect the foreign

travellers as well.

a) 50,000 Tourist initiative: This is an initiative that has been adopted by the

European Commission through intergovernmental collaboration in order to

promote travel between the EU and the third world countries. This initiative,

like the Senior Tourism Initiative, is also founded though the joint partnership

of private and public sectors in the EU and the collaborating countries. At

present, the initiative has strong ties with Brazil, Argentina and Chile. However,

it is soon expected to include rest of the countries from the Third World

(European commission 2013). This policy of the EU can really help in enhancing

better ties of the region with the third world countries.

14

b) Euro Velo: This venture is embarked upon with a vision to promote

sustainable, environment friendly tourism. This involves exploring the whole of

the EU through a cycling route (European Commission 2013). Through this

route, Europe can be seen and experienced by tourists, foreign and local,

through personalised journey. Fourteen routes have been constructed so far

and the project is said to be completed by 2020 (EuroVelo 2014). This venture

will enable tourist to experience the European culture more closely by

journeying through the region in a personal engagement.

Further, for international promotion of tourism in the EU, the policy makers

have adopted a simplified process of acquiring visa. Through this program,

foreign nationals can apply a single Schengen visa and travel across the

Schengen zone. The EU has also collaborated with various countries mostly in

South America and regional organisations like Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

(EUROMED), Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),

United Nations World Travel Organisation (UNWTO) and MERCOSUR

(European Commission 2013).

As a result of such policies adopted at the regional level, the EU has emerged as

the number one tourist destination for a more than a decade now and continues

to receive growing number of tourist arrivals each year (UNWTO 2014). The

policy makers have taken in their drive to continue to make Europe the most

popular destination for travel and vacation by constructing and preserving

excessive cultural heritages and providing a wide range of tourist attractions

within whole of the EU (European Commission 2013). Some of the most

prominent being the Latvian architecture of National Romanticism, art

Nouveau, Archeological heritage under water; old city of Dubrovnik and Stari

Grad Plain in Croatia; Struve Geodetic Arc in Estonia; city of Budapest, Caves of

Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst, Ferto cultural Landscape in Hungary;

Megalithic temples of Malta and many more (UNESCO 2013). The graph below

provided in table 2.2 outlines the boost in tourism in the member states which

witnessed a small number of tourist arrivals before the adoption of the tourism

policy under EU. Anastasiadou predicts in her evaluation of the EU tourism that

the central and Eastern European states would witness a wider boost in tourism

(Anastasiadou 2006). This prediction of hers is materialized in tourism trends

in the EU. The graph below shows Latvia, Malta and Estonia to have seen the

15

maximum growth after the adoption of the tourism policy under the EU. The

reason for such a trend is not just due to their emergence as the ‘new’ tourist

destinations with attractive historical cultural heritages, but also because they

are comparatively cheaper than the ‘old’ destinations like Germany, United

Kingdom, Italy and France (Hughes and Allen 2006; Anastasiadou 2006)

Table 2.2- Tourism Trends in few of the EU States

Source: European Travel Commission., 2014. URL: http://www.etc-

corporate.org/images/reports%5CETC-Q4-2013_Trends_and_Prospects.pdf

[Accessed 23rd December 2014].

III. Public Diplomacy and the Emergence as the Leading Tourist Destination:

European Union

As we can see, the policies adopted by the EU are exceedingly tourist friendly.

Thus, the policy of tourism that has been adopted by the EU policy makers

attempts to engage directly with the people, both foreign nationals and the

citizens (taking account of the disadvantaged section as well) of EU. In this

effort, the European Commission, thus, has built a direct relation with the public

through its tourism policy by creating easily accessible and affordable tourism

which can positively shape the leisure needs of travellers. This direct relation of

the EU as an institution/regional organisation with the common masses can

thus, be viewed as a public diplomacy mentioned in the first chapter, that the EU

has engaged it. This form of public diplomacy, which will be discussed

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Malta Croatia Latvia Estonia Poland Italy Spain

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

16

empirically and in detail in the next chapter, helps in shaping of a positive

external image of the EU, thus helping it gain legitimacy and recognition in the

international community.

i) International Tourism Trends

In order to understand the outcome of this tool of public diplomacy of EU i.e.

tourism policy, and its effects on tourists, we need to analyse the statistical data

of the tourism trends, both international and domestic. Table 2.3 shows the

tourism growth of European Union since start of the 21st century juxtaposed

with other regions of the globe. The bar graph clearly depicts the popularity of

EU member states in the tourism industry. EU had the highest number of tourist

arrivals going up to 430.0 million tourist arrivals at the end of the year 2013,

the lowest being witnessed by South Asia with just 15.2 million.

Table 2.3- International Tourism Trends

Source: UNWTO., 2014. URL:

http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_barom14_01_j

an_excerpt.pdf [Accessed 17th December 2014]

ii) Domestic Tourism Trends

The above data represents tourism experience of the EU at the international

level. However, it is also necessary to analyze the domestic tourism trends

within the member states in order to understand the impact of the current

tourism policy on the citizens within the member states. Domestic travel data in

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2000

2005

2010

2013

17

statistics in the EU is given below in table 2.4. The data shows trips taken by the

citizens of the member states for personal purpose within the EU in 2012.

Maximum visited country is Germany. Whereas Malta, even though having seen

the maximum growth in international tourist arrivals, happens to have the least

domestic tourist arrivals within EU. Germany, France and United Kingdom, on

the other hand, have the largest market for domestic tourist visits. The reason

for this kind of tourism trend has been under researched. However, the

underlying reason for such travel trends within the EU could be due the citizen’s

inclination towards the exotic tourism culture of Western Europe like back

packing across the foothills of the Alps and various cultural festivals. Another

factor could also be that Western Europe was very much inaccessible before the

formation of the EU and with the dismantling of the borders, the sudden

openness towards the rich and highly attractive culture that was portrayed

since the time immemorial, gave way for free and unrestricted travel to the

Eastern Europeans.

Table 2.4- Domestic Tourism Trends

Source: EuroStat., 2014. URL:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&la

nguage=en&pcode=tin00185 [Accessed 23rd December 2014].

The statistics provided above in the three figures show the wide market value of

the EU in the tourism industry. The policy makers, by bringing the tourism

sector under the direct control of the EU, have put it a great deal of thought to

make the most out of the capacity of the sector in its contribution towards

0

10000000

20000000

30000000

40000000

50000000

60000000

18

bringing foreign revenue, generation of employment opportunities, shaping of

identities and influencing other external states. The outcome of these strategies,

as can be observed through the statistical data above, has made the EU highly

popular and tourists often refer to the travel in Europe as “Euro Trip” emerging

now as a brand in the tourism industry. The Euro Trip is therefore, considerably

economical, accessible and hence, feasible.

IV. Conclusion

Moving forward, the next chapter will build critical connections between

tourism, construction of identity, and soft power. The main objective of the next

chapter will be to show how tourism can be a source of soft power for the EU

that contributes to its recognition in the international community, and at the

same time, how this soft power of the EU can help in creating a sense of what it

means to be “citizens of the EU” i.e. help in the construction of a common

identity for people of the EU. It will also evaluate the success of EU’s public

diplomacy and what value does the “EuroTrip” hold for the policy makers of the

European commission.

19

CHAPTER 3

Assessing the European Tourism as a Source of Soft

Power

"If the European Union is serious about taking a greater role in the world affairs it

will require a public diplomacy capability to match....For the Union to prosper it

must project a positive image of itself to opinion formers and to the ‘man in the

street’ both within and beyond its borders"

- (Gouiveia and Plumridge 2005).

I. Introduction

From the first chapter, it is clear that tourism is a great source for cultural

consumption and that the field has taken a serious turn and has become a part

of people’s lives, mostly the upper class and to a great extent, even the middle

class, all over the world. The second chapter highlights the tourism policy and

trends of the EU as the number one choice of destination for tourism purpose.

This chapter, with a view to answer the main research question discussed in the

introductory section, has been divided into two broad groupings that locates

tourism policy of the EU at the macro level i.e. the international dome, and at the

micro level i.e. the member states of the organisation. The macro level analysis

will seek to evaluate the impact of the adopted tourism policy on the

international community and what the citizens of the international community

perceives of the EU based on their experience or knowledge about the EU

tourism policy. Since, tourism policy, in this research, is being viewed as a tool

of public diplomacy that deals directly with the public of foreign states as

mentioned in the second chapter, the focus of analysis will mainly be on the

foreign national’s perception of the EU as an international actor. The micro level

analysis, on the other hand, will give a critical assessment of the tourism policy

in its contribution towards building of a common identity among the citizens of

the EU. Therefore, this chapter draws heavily from the first two chapters,

making both implicit and explicit connections of tourism as a source of soft

power.

20

II. The Macro Level Analysis: Tourism policy as Public Diplomacy

Enlargement of the EU and bringing tourism under its direct purview, as

underlined in the previous chapter, has enabled the entire region to reap a wide

range of benefits in the tourism sector. In this sector, especially countries in

Central and Eastern Europe like Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia have benefited

from joining the EU and its adoption of the ‘regional commons’ such as the

common market and currency- Euro, and the Schengen zone as it reduces travel

costs for travellers making tourism affordable within the entire region. The EU

assists its member states with aids and fund in projects that relate to tourism

development (Anastasiadou 2006). As a result of all these efforts on the part of

the EU, as we have seen through the figures provided in the second chapter,

tourism has been increasing in the region for more than a decade, standing as

the leading choice for travel. This section will analyze the impact of tourism

policy by the European Commission on the perceptions of the nationals of

foreign states and seek to assess the effectiveness of the tool of public

diplomacy embraced by the policy makers in the form of tourism policy.

EU’s international identity, though a benign one, has been seen by foreign

nationals of external states, as only an affluent economic actor in trade

relations, rather than a global actor in world affairs. In a survey conducted by

many contributors on the image of the EU in Asia, New Zealand, South East Asia,

South Africa, Brazil, and also among organisations like UN General Assembly,

the World Bank, African Union (AU) and some Non-Governmental Organisations

(NGOs) including Al Jazeera, it’s role as a global actor was seen largely as an

ineffective one, or as a “soft entity”, an economic multilateral trade actor in

world economy, with few citizens from these states even lacking knowledge

about what the EU really is or what purpose it aims to achieve (Portela 2010,

Lucarelli 2013, Jain and Pandey 2010, Chan 2010, Fioramonti and Poletti 2008).

However, among those who are aware of the European project and accept its

role as an international actor, the notion of “power for the good”, in their view,

has certainly been exemplified by the EU as a global actor (Lucarelli 2013). This

has got mainly to do with the non-existence of a strong united military/armed

force under the EU. Therefore, the international image of the EU is that of a

‘normative’ or ‘civilian’ power, which means that it is seen as “a powerful actor

21

that has renounced a threat of force and that emphasizes negotiation and

persuasion to achieve its ends in its external relations” (Portela 2010). This

means that the EU’s power is seen more in ‘soft’ terms than ‘hard’. International

identities of states are shaped mainly with its relations and engagements with

the ‘external’. Even with its unique features as a non-traditional state that has

transcended the Westphalian system, as discussed earlier in the second chapter,

the same applies to the EU as well i.e. external perceptions greatly shape

recognition and legitimacy of the EU. Therefore, it means that the EU, with the

absence of hard military power, has to frame its soft power strategies in a way

that it becomes attractive enough to persuade other international actors that it

is dealing with, mainly through its cultural values, institutions and foreign

policy. Tourism can thus be located in such a strategy that the EU has adopted

for promoting itself to the world.

Tourism, as discussed in length in the first chapter, is a great source for

consumption of cultural values as it provides with an opportunity to actively

engage with and live the experience of another community or society. Cultural

heritages like Notre Dame Cathedral, the Latin Quarter, famous historical

churches like the St. Peter’s Basilica or the St. Mark’s Cathedral though still very

popular in Europe, have been complemented with new, modern forms of tourist

attractions. The popularity of emerging tourist destinations in Europe today are

highly shaped by contemporary cultural trends, some of which includes fashion,

festivals, beaches, and music (Richards 2008). The Bread and Butter Festival in

Barcelona, the North Sea Jazz Festival in Rotterdam, the Oktober Fest in

Germany, the Edinburg Fest in Scotland, and even sports organizational events

like the English Premier League, Spanish Premier League, Wimbledon

Championships, to name a few, have gained increasing popularity, attracting

tourists from across the globe, thus becoming a tourist destination on their own

(Richards 2008). The creation of such cultural forums enables tourists to

interact with the locals and provides with a chance to engage with the real

European life. As a result, a lot of “EU-ropean” values can be consumed by the

tourists from the locals during such engagements. After these festivals, tourists,

taking advantage of the single visa policy, usually end up travelling to other

countries within the EU, i.e. apart from the countries where these festivals are

held. Other than these developments in countries of the EU through various

22

projects, there are also other programs that enable even sections like youths

and students from various parts of the globe to travel and experience “EU-rope”.

For instance, the International Students’ Week in Ilmenau (ISWI), Germany; the

International Students’ Festival in Trondheim (ISFiT), Norway (though not a

part of the EU, it has opened its borders under the Schengen agreement) are

sponsored by the Ministry of Education and ventured upon by the youth in

these places which enable youth from all over the world to visit these countries

at the least possible expenditure (ISFit 2013, ISWI e. V. 2013). The creation and

establishment of these new forms of tourist attractions in the EU, has given

opportunity for a wide range of travellers to consume the “EU-ropean” culture.

While the elderly can opt for European travel to enjoy cathedrals, churches and

other cultural heritages, the youth can choose festivals and beaches as their

tourist destinations. Hence, consumption of “EU-ropean” culture through

tourism is open to a wide range of age groups and classes.

The EU, by formulating such highly appealing and attractive strategies in its

tourism policy that have been mentioned above, has contributed in the shaping

a positive image of itself in the perception of foreigners. In an interview

conducted by Portela in some of the South East Asian countries, most people,

according to her, said that the most attractive feature of the EU was its adoption

of a common currency- Euro and the dismantling of borders for an even

integrated Europe by allowing free, uncontrolled movement of citizens and

foreigners (Portela 2010). One person said, “They have opened their borders so

that among the members there’s no need to get a visa”, another person, also

commenting on the common visa policy of the EU member states said, “you

come out of the immigration in Amsterdam and you no longer need to have your

passport stamped anywhere” (Portela 2010, p. 152). Both these interviewees

seem very impressed with the fact that travel within the EU is unrestricted.

Even the travel blogs of visitors describe in great ecstasy about being able to

travel and experience great variations of different cultures in a single trip. Most

have owed their convenience of travelling across Europe to the dismantling of

borders and the adoption of a common currency which made their trip cheap

and easy (Vin 2013, Rowell 2011). Vin, in his blogs, encourages travellers to hire

car and drive across country borders; he also encourages to take the rail in

which one can experience most of the member states within the EU through

23

sightseeing and pours his excitement in his writing about being able to see four

countries in just two days (Vin 2013). In a similar survey conducted in India

regarding the perception of the EU by R. K. Jain and S. Pandey, many responded

that they had unheard of the EU and lacked knowledge about what purpose it

served. Even among the elites, the knowledge of the EU as a global

intergovernmental institutional actor was minimal and the only thing that they

knew was the adoption of Euro and the Schengen visa policy by the EU that

which makes travel comparatively cheaper and more convenient than in other

regions of the world (Jain and Pandey 2010).

The common thread that runs between all these surveys conducted by various

academicians and scholars reveal the lack of knowledge about what exactly is

the EU and what ends it aspires to attain. Even in international affairs and world

politics, the role of EU is prominent mostly in economic and/or trade activities,

eg its functioning in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as a single entity on

behalf of its member states. However, when it comes to political issues, the role

of the EU is still almost imperceptible and it’s the respective member states that

continue to take charge in politics. For instance, in the UN Security Council,

France and the United Kingdom (UK) hold the Permanent Member seats instead

of the EU as an international actor occupying a single seat on behalf of its

member states. For that matter, even while talking about political affairs most

people know the President of France, Prime Minister of the UK or the Chancellor

of Germany, but the role and functions or even the name of the President of the

EU is hardly known to many. Thus, as a result of these factors, complete

acceptance of the EU by people of the international community is still missing.

Therefore, by adoption the current tourism policy, which has emerged as a tool

of public diplomacy, can be a great source for gaining legitimacy and recognition

from the public. Tourism policies such as those mentioned above can thus, be

located as one of EU’s public diplomacy through which the values of “EU-rope”

can be placed at the forefront for foreign consumption which can ultimately lead

to recognition of the EU as a global actor. Again in a similar kind of survey

conducted in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Macau, the interviewer received

same kind of attitude towards the EU from the respondents, i.e. a borderless

regionally integrated entity with high index in terms of human rights, education,

culture, democracy and prosperity (Chan 2010, Chaban et al. 2009). As we can

24

see, in the absence of a concrete knowledge about the EU, it can be observed

how its image as a “borderless” entity, with a common Schengen visa policy that

allows travel across 26 countries (refer table 2.1, chapter 2) with a single visa

can be a threshold from where the values like that of respect for human rights,

democracy, culture, and education can be observed in an active engagement

through travel across these “borderless” countries within the EU, can be

understood.

Thus, the common tourism policy adopted by the EU under Article 176 B of the

treaty of Lisbon highlighted in chapter two, has become widely popular to the

extent that it has served as a tool of public diplomacy. Its success is materialized

by the fact that even those who do not know about what the project of EU really

seeks to attain, are still aware of the “EuroTrip”. As a result of this success,

considering the vast tourism capacity by policy makers in various regions, they

have now opened discussions on the EU visa policy as a model to establish

regional visas in their respective regions. South Asia, South East Asia, Eastern

and Southern Africa and also the Middle East are few of the regions that have

started talks on the subject (Harper 2013, Asian Development Bank et al. 2010,

Islam et al. 2010). The image of the EU as a model for regional integration

combined with these developments of single visa debates in other regions, have

further helped the EU in gaining a certain degree of recognition as a global

player. This has, to a great degree, made possible by its adoption of the current

attractive tourism policy mentioned above.

The next section of this chapter will be dedicated to the micro level analysis of

the impact of tourism and will be mainly focused on how the tourism policy of

the EU has affected the citizens of the member states and will seek to analyze

whether the objective of adopting the current tourism policy, i.e. to contribute

to the shaping of a common European identity, as mentioned in the second

chapter, has been fulfilled or not.

III. The Micro Level Analysis: Tourism policy as an effort to build common

“EU-ropean” identity

The success of EU as an intergovernmental regional organisation has been

accepted widely to the extent that many see it as a model for, not just a

postmodern state, but an efficacious process of regional integration. However,

as noted in the above section, its image as a successful regional organisation

25

among academicians, intellectuals and scholars, has not helped the EU in

earning an image of a recognized political, global actor in international affairs.

While the above section dealt with the external perception of the EU among few

parts of the international community, this section will be dedicated in exploring

the internal citizen’s perception about the EU and how these citizens identify

with the larger union.

Benedict Anderson in his famous writing on “Imagined communities” argues

that nationalism as a phenomenon is intrinsically tied to the formation of

nation-states and hence, psychological feelings of nationalism, patriotism and

community are in fact, historically “imagined” that have more to do with culture

than with ideology (Anderson 1983). Therefore, communities are not naturally

given, but are ‘imagined’ and born out of social and political construction. The

modern Westphalian system was born in Europe giving birth to the present

forms of nation-states across the globe. This historical nation-state formation,

consequently, deriving from Anderson’s understanding of nationalism, gave

birth to identity associated with nation states, like everywhere else, even in

Europe. Subsequently, founding of the EU that transcended these historical

nation states brought with it an identity crisis lacking solidarity among the

Europeans. This today stands as one of the biggest challenges to the project of

the EU. Further, the public in the EU mostly identify with the larger Union on

factors of economic success and when the economic conditions deteriorate, it

might have an adverse effect on the public opinion towards the EU. For example,

the financial crisis that emerged in 2008 which affected member states like

Greece, Italy and Portugal, the citizens turned highly skeptical of the EU project

and demanded withdrawal from the EU (Roth 2009, Fraile and Mauro 2010).

Even the citizens that were not affected directly by the crisis protested against

the EU. For instance, the Germans opposed the government support of the

countries affected by the crisis. Economic stability, however, cannot be

guaranteed and each time the EU member states sees a rough financial

situation, the public may withdraw their support for the EU project. In addition,

huge section of the society within the member states, view the project of EU as a

threat to national and cultural identity and some also see it as a project of

capitalism that is exploitative in nature (Checkel and Katzenstein 2009). Now,

the UK has begun talks of withdrawal from the EU. In such a situation with

26

ongoing challenges of identity crisis that the EU is faced with and the public

support being conditioned on the economic success of the EU, the tourism

policy that the policy makers have adopted can serve positively which can

contribute in great part to the creation of a common identity. In the second

chapter we have discussed the various tourism policies adopted by the

European Commission that benefits almost all section of citizens including the

pensioners, physically challenged, those with financial disabilities and also the

youth, thus, making travel across countries easily available for citizens of

member states. However, the main question is, whether the adoption of such

policies can contribute to the formation of common “EU-ropean” identity.

Pretes writes, “The viewing of heritage sights by domestic tourists is a key

aspect in formation and maintenance of a national identity, especially when

national identities are understood as an ‘imagined community’” (Pretes 2003, p.

125). Establishing sites of significance leads tourists to associate with the

common past embedded, in the case of the EU, in churches, heritage sites,

museums that highlight the shared past experience of the birth of

enlightenment, modernity, and Christianity to name a few. Holly Case, thus,

urges the adoption of a technique of “strategically” remembering the shared

past of the Europeans (Case 2009). The strategy of tourism as presented in the

discussion throughout this research work can thus be seen as an effort to

remember the shared history through the technique of creating an appealing

tourism sites and activities. This is mainly because, “centers of cultural

production promote a central value system”, in this case, identity based on

solidarity (Pretes 2003, p. 128).

Under the tourism policy, cultural heritages established, museums are created,

festivals are organized all of which form a ‘fictitious entities’ that shape

identities. These objectified forms of fictitious creations contribute to “a sense

of nation, peoplehood, and collective identity” (Pretes 2003, Prentice et al.

1998). Thus, we can assume that communities are ‘imagined’ because they

emerge from construction of such kind of fiction. Engaging in tourism thus,

contributes actively in the creation, and at the same time, in the adoption of the

‘imagined community’, positively so for the project of the EU.

Identities are intrinsically related to place i.e. those which are bounded by

borders (Wise 2000, Passi 2001, Timothy 2001). Even in Anderson’s

27

understanding, national identities is knit closely together with territorial

nation-states. The EU, by allowing free movements within member states has

challenged the traditional notions of nationalism and moved towards post-

nationalism born out of the post-modern state system like that of the EU.

Therefore, the dismantling of the borders and allowing for free movement

within the Schengen zone without any visa requirements is another aspect of

the tourism sector in the EU that contributes to the creation of a common “EU-

ropean” identity. Fransce, in his blog, argues that the EU is a region with diverse

history and culture, and hence, the only way to create a common identity with

allegiance to the larger Union is by keeping up with the concept of a borderless

EU (Trillas 2013). Even in one of the articles in One Europe, one of the very

popular non-profit voluntary online magazine, a contributor writes, “Mobility

within Europe is crucial in creating a European identity” (Mouzeviris 2014).

Taormina also argues about the importance of experiencing culture and cultural

heritages in Europe for the creation of a common European identity by stressing

the point of these cultural based experiences as an “integral element of a

European set of values” which shape identities (Taormina 2009). Anderson,

analyzing the boost in capitalism, has, in his work of “Imagined Communities”

talked about print capitalism as a functional area that builds ‘imagined

communities’. However, now with the advent of post-modern state that the EU

stands for and the need for post-nationalism based on solidarity, tourism can

(and observing the experiences of the EU citizens available in the blogs and

newspapers that have been evaluated, has), to a great extent, serve as the

modern functional area to build ‘imagined communities’ in the EU.

Thus, deriving from the arguments put forward above, it is clear that tourism

policy adopted by the EU has to a great degree contributed to the creation of a

common identity and can continue to contribute towards shaping of a new post-

modern form of ‘imagined community’ based on post-nationalism in the EU.

IV. Conclusion

The strategy of tourism, as observed in the statistical analysis provided in the

previous chapter and the perceptions and experiences of both foreign nationals

and the citizens of member states, as discussed above, has certainly been a

successful strategy of the EU. The challenges faced by the EU as discussed in the

28

above two sections, is still on-going and tourism definitely is not the only

solution as the EU, even with the current tourism policy, continues to lack

legitimacy and recognition among huge section of people across the world.

Many even consider the EU to be ineffective with minimal visibility in the

international front that remains under the shadow of the individual EU member

states and economic processes (Portela 2010). However, tourism, emerging

from the appealing policy adopted by the policy makers in this sector, have

contributed to a great degree in recognition of the EU as a global political actor

in world matters in the eyes of the foreign nationals. It has also become a

threshold from where the values of “EU-rope” are moving across the globe.

Within the EU, the tourism policy has proven successful to the extent that it has

contributed in creation of a common identity among the citizens of member

states. However, even at this micro level, tourism is definitely not the only

answer because, even with the accessible tourism for wide range of population,

it still has its limits like that of language, which continues to stand as dividing

factor between citizens of different countries within the EU.

Moving on, in the final chapter, concluding thoughts on the potential of the

tourism sector will be given and strive to look into the EU tourism as means to

brand the region and establish the “EuroTrip” as a brand in the tourism

industry. Further, the success of the dissertation work in answering the core

questions of this research will be analyzed and will also evaluate for further

potential of this dissertation in deepening the research area while, at the same

time, keeping in mind the limitations of the field of tourism.

29

CHAPTER 4

Conclusion

EuroTrip goes beyond economics and culture and has established itself as a

brand in the tourism industry, thus emerging as a source of soft power.

I. Introduction

Looking into the phenomenon of the tourism, the industry as a whole comes

with various dimensional outcomes. The travel industry is closely knit with the

economic sector, environmental sector, leisure and cultural sector. However,

observing the gap in the scholarly work and literature of the phenomenon of

tourism in the political sector, this research’s main objective was to analyze the

gap between tourism and politics. Therefore, keeping in mind the cultural

nature of tourism, the core purpose of this dissertation was to bring tourism

within the political discourse from the threshold of culture and soft power.

II. Hypotheses and Research Questions

The research work was based on three fundamental hypotheses. They are:

i. Tourism helps in projection and promotion of culture, values and image of a

state/nation/region.

ii. Tourism can be a source of soft power.

ii. Tourism Strategy of the EU can help in the construction of common identity.

Looking back at the dissertation, the case of the EU that has been studied proves

the above mentioned assumptions, thus testifying all three hypotheses.

Following these hypotheses, the main questions that the research sought to

answer was:

i. How does the currently implemented tourism policy of the EU act as a soft

power in:

a) Creating a sense of common identity among the people of the EU; and

b) Creating legitimacy and recognition at the stage of international politics.

Again, going back the previous chapters, both the research question has been

answered by taking the international and domestic common public of the EU

into focus and engaging closely with the concept of public diplomacy.

30

III. Methods and Measurements

In an effort to answer the research questions, keeping in mind the

interdisciplinary character of the dissertation, a combination of both qualitative

and quantitative methods were applied. Taking an interdisciplinary approach,

literature based research method has been applied. Literature from the

disciplines of political science and tourism with central focus on the concept of

culture was studied, analyzed and evaluated. The findings derived, through the

application of this survey has mostly been discussed in chapter one and three.

Following the literature survey method, data, statistics and figures provided by

various organisations and institutions like the UNWTO, Euro Barometer,

European Travel Commission, and European commission were also analyzed

through the use of descriptive analytical method. The outcome of this

application has been mostly discussed in chapter 2.

Other sources which the research derives heavily from are the secondary

sources. Given the limited time period and the inaccessibility to conduct

interviews with people under survey, newspaper reports, opinion pieces and

blogs have been referred to for collection on opinions and ideas.

IV. Establishing the “EuroTrip” as a Brand

With the progress of the research, keeping in view the boost in the EU soft

power after the inception of the common tourism policy, the concept of the

“EuroTrip” as a brand in the tourism industry is established. Thus, verifying that

the soft power of the EU derives greatly from the tourism industry and the

industry in the EU has not just served as a source of revenue and employment,

but has also led to development of the region as a single entity with the

dismantled borders and has helped to foster a sense of common identity. On the

international front, the tourism policy of the EU has assisted in gaining its

legitimacy as an international actor in world affairs. Further, the EU based on

the success of its tourism policy for the international community, has now

emerged as a successful model of regional polity of peaceful co-existence

grounded on free movement ideals, for both international and domestic public,

in a globalised world order. This success can be seen in terms of the other

regions of the world starting their respective discussions and debates on the

31

idea of venturing upon a similar model of free movement of the people within

their individual regions.

Thus, the tourism policy of the EU has materialized as a successful project that

has greatly advantaged the EU and brought the people of the region closer

together. This success verifies the capacity of the discourse of tourism to widely

shape the political field and therefore, this area can and thus, needs to be

further explored within the discipline of politics.

V. Limitations

With the great scope that tourism embodies, it however, does not completely

cater to the challenge posed by lack of legitimacy and recognition that the EU is

faced with in today’s time, both domestically and internationally. Few of the

barriers that stand on the way of the EU are:

1) Language: The EU is a conglomerate of widely diverse linguistic cultures. As a

result, even the promotion of the values of “EU-ropean” solidarity through the

approach of tourism may not be effective as a whole. English, though being

popular throughout Europe, still has not seeped completely into people’s lives.

The lower class do not have exposure to English language, especially since

education is delivered in the respective national languages in the member states

of the EU. Hence, even with the promotion of tourism and support for travel

through schemes and policies like Calypso, when the barrier of language stands

between the tourist and the host, the notion of a “foreigner” or an “outsider”

remains for both.

2) Economic factors: As discussed in chapter three, economic success is one of

the main factors for support of the project of EU by the citizens and recognition

by the foreigners. However, economic stability depends on the international

system as a whole, and cannot be guaranteed by anybody. In events like the

financial crisis that began in 2008 and affected countries like Greece, Italy,

Portugal, which can occur again, can stand as a great setback to the project of

the EU, both within the region and internationally. In such a scenario, the

tourism policy, acting as a source of soft power, can itself stand a hindrance to

the very success of the industry due to economic instability.

3) Opposition from lower class: As Checkel and Katzenstien point out, the project

of a united “EU-rope” has been highly criticized by the left wing forces within

32

the EU that see it as a project of the capitalist class from which only the elites

and the upper class can benefit and the blue collar job holders and lower class

who do not have the means and the time to travel and learn different language

of the region do not gain the fruits of the project of EU (Checkel and Katzenstein

2009). Even though, the EU tourism policy makers have adopted schemes like

Calypso or the Senior Tourism Initiative, that reach out to these section of the

society, the programs do not reach out to every single person and they can

stand as the biggest challenge to the success of the EU based on solidarity.

4) Inefficient Political Visibility: In the international front, as discussed

previously, the EU as a single, united global actor in the political arena still lacks

complete visibility with its respective member states still playing major roles in

the international political dome while the EU remains in their shadows and

becomes active usually in the economic negotiations for most part of its role as

an international actor. Therefore, as a result, external opinion of the EU still

remains that of a global economic player, tourism being a part of the economic

activity of the EU.

Thus, even with the success of the currently implemented tourism policy, there

are many factors still that stand on the way of the success of the EU as a global

political actor both with the member states and internationally.

This dissertation is only an inception that can open the doors to wider

discussions in the future. Therefore, the EU policy makers, analysts and

academicians should take the field of tourism more seriously and strive to

answer through the industry’s capacity by creating more connections and

establishing stronger and creative ways to overcome the barriers that stand in

front of the EU today.

33

References

Chapter 1

Baldwin, D., 2002. Power and International Relations. In: Carlsnaes, W., et al.,

eds Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage Publications Ltd

Buzan, B. and Waever, O., 2003. Regions and Power: The Structure of

International Security, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Cohen, E., 1984. The Sociology of Tourism: Approaches, Issues and Findings.

Annual Review of Sociology, 10: 373-392

European Commission., 2013. EU Policy – Background [Online]. Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/background/ [Accessed 11

November 2013].

Geertz, C., 2000. The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books

Gilboa, E., 2008. Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy. The Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616: 55-77

Ham, P. V., 2008. Place Branding: The State of the Art. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 616: 126-149

Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S., 2012. Power and Interdependence, Illinoi: Longman

Mann, M., 1986. The sources of social power, New York: Cambridge university

press

Melissen, J., 2005. The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice. In:

Melissen, J., eds. The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations,

New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Nye, J. S., 2004. Soft Power The Means To Success in World Politics, New York:

PublicAffairs

Prevots, N., 1998. Dance for Export: Cultural Diplomacy and the Cold War,

Middletown: Wesleyan University Press

Rasheed, M. F., 1995. “The Concept of Power in International Relations”,

Pakistan Horizon, 48 (1): 95-99

Richards, G., 1996. “Production and Consumption of European Cultural

Tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (2): 261-283

Richards, G., 2005. Cultural Tourism in context. In: Richards, G., eds. Cultural

Tourism in Europe, Wellingford: Association for Tourism and Leisure Education

34

Richards, G., 2008. A New Cultural Tourism for a New Europe?. Annals of

Tourism Research, 418-422

Richards, G., 2011. Creativity and Tourism: The State of the Art. Annals of

Tourism Research, 38 (4), 1225-1253

Robinson, M., 2011 Tourism Studies. In: Southerton, D., eds. Encyclopedia of

Consumer Culture, New Delhi: SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

Rozmarin, M., 2005. Freedom and Individuality: Foucault and Sexual Difference.

Human Studies, 28 (1): 3

Smith, W. L., 2006. Experiential Tourism Standards: The Perceptions of Rural

Tourism Providers. International Journal of Services and Standards, 2 (3): 273-

285

Stebbins, R. A., 1996. Cultural Tourism as Serious Leisure. Annals of Tourism

Research, 948-950

Stebbins, R. A., 1997. Identity and Cultural Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,

24: 450-452

UNWTO., 2013. World Tourism Highlights. World Tourism Barometer [online].

11. Available from:

http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_barom13_06_

dec_excerpt.pdf

Warleigh, A., 2004. The Basics: European Union, New York: Routledge

World Expiditions., 2013. Types of Adventures [Online]. Available from:

http://www.worldexpeditions.com/au/index.php?section=types_of_adventures

[Accessed 17 November 2013].

Chapter 2

Anastasiadou, C., 2006. Tourism and The European Union. In: Hall D. R. et al.,

eds. Tourism and The New Europe: The challenges and Opportunities of EU

Enlargement, London: CAB International Publishing

Buzan, B. and Waever, O., 2003. Regions and Power: The Structure of

International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

European Commission., 2008. The Schengen Area [Online]. Available from:

http://biblio.ucv.ro/bib_web/bib_pdf/EU_books/0056.pdf [Accessed 1 April

2014]

35

European Commission., 2013. EU Policy – Background [Online]. Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/background/index_en.htm

[Accessed 5 Feb 2014].

European Commission., 2013. Low-Season Tourism [Online]. Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/calypso/index_en.htm

[Accessed 5 Feb 2014]

European Commission., 2013. Tourism for Seniors [Online]. Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/tourism-

seniors/index_en.htm [Accessed 5th Feb. 2014]

European Commission., 2013. 50 000 Tourist Initiative [Online]. Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/50k/index_en.htm [Accessed

6th Feb, 2014].

European Commission., 2013. Cycling Routes [Online]. Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/cycling-tourism/index_en.htm

[Accessed 6th Feb. 2014].

European Commission., 2014. Tourism Trends [Online]. Available from:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tourism_tren

ds [Accessed 7th Feb. 2014].

European Commission., 2013. Promoting Europe Internationally [Online].

Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/international/index_en.htm

[Accessed 5th Feb 2014].

European Travel Commission. 2014. European Tourism 2014- Trends and

Prospects [Online]. Available from: http://www.etc-

corporate.org/images/reports%5CETC-Q4-2013_Trends_and_Prospects.pdf

[Accessed 10th Feb. 2014].

EuroVelo., 2014. Discover Europe by Bike [Online]. Available from:

http://www.eurovelo.com/en [Accessed 6th Feb 2014].

Hughes, H and Allen, D., 2006. Cultural Tourism in Central and Eastern Europe:

the view of ‘induced image formation agents. Tourism Management, 26: 173-183

Treaty of Lisbon 2007 (C 306/01).

Riegert, B., 2013. The Lure of a Borderless Europe [Online] Available from:

http://www.dw.de/the-lure-of-a-borderless-europe/a-16654284 [Accessed 27

March. 2014].

36

UNESCO., 2013. World Heritage List, [Online] available from:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list [Accessed 17th March 2014].

UNWTO., 2014. World Tourism Highlights. World Tourism Barometer, vol. 12,

Madrid

Verheugen, G., 2005. Europe is Strong when it Acts in Concert. Speech delivered

on 30 June 2005 at Humboldt University: Berlin

Warleigh, A., 2004. The Basics: European Union, New York: Routledge

Chapter 3

Anastasiadou, C., 2006. Tourism and The European Union. In: Hall D. R. et al.,

eds. Tourism and The New Europe: The challenges and Opportunities of EU

Enlargement, London: CAB International Publishing

Anderson, B., 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread

of Nationalism, London: Verso

Asian Development Bank et al., 2010. Key Proposals for Harnessing Business

Opportunities in south Asia, Philippines

Case, H., 2009. Being European: East and West. In: Checkel, J. T. and Katzenstein,

P. J., eds. European Identity, New York: Cambridge University Press

Chaban, N. et al., 2009. European Commission Delegation and EU Public Policy:

Stakeholders’ Perceptions from the Asia Pacific. European Foreign Affairs

Review, 14: 271-288

Chan, K., 2010. Images, Visibility and the Prospects of Soft Power of the EU in

Asia: the Case of China. Asia Eur Journal, 8: 133-147

Chapuis, M., 2009. Preserving our Heritage, Improving our Culture [Online].

Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/documents/publications/20years_cultural_heritag

e_vol1_en.pdf [Accessed 21 March 2014].

Checkel, J. T. and Katzenstein, P. J., 2009. European Identity, New York:

Cambridge University Press

Fioramonti, L. and Poletti, A., 2008. Facing the Giant: Southern Perspectives on

the European Union. Third World Quarterly, 29 (1): 167-180

Fraile, M and Mauro, D., 2010. The Economic Crisis and the Public Opinion

About Europe”, EUDO Spotlight, 1: 1-5

37

Gouiveia, P. D. and Plumridge, H., 2005. European Infopolitik: Developing EU

Pubic Strategy, London: Foreign Policy Centre

Harper, J., 2013. New Regional Visas will make Life Easier for Travellers

[Online]. Available from:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/10350958/New-regional-visas-

will-make-life-easier-for-travellers.html [Accessed 22 March 2014]

ISFiT., 2014. What is ISFiT? [Online]. Available from:

https://www.isfit.org/pages/7 [Accessed 20 March. 2014 URL]

Islam, M. et al., 2010. Economic Integration in south Asia: Issues and Pathways,

New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt Ltd pp 262-263

ISWI e. V., 2013. ISWI 2013 – Moving Youth [Online]. Available from:

http://www.iswi2013.org/en/about-iswi [Accessed 20 March 2014].

Jain, R. K. and Pandey, S., 2010. The European Union in the Eyes of India. Asia

Eur Journal, 8: 193-209

Lucarelli, S., 2013. Seen from the Outside: The State of the Art on the External

Image of the EU. Journal of European Integration, 36 (1): 1-16

Mouzeviris, C., 2014. Shaping Europe from the bottom up [Online]. Available

from: http://one-europe.info/shaping-europe-from-bottom-up [Accessed 19

March 2014].

Passi, A., 2001. Europe as a Social Process and Discourse: Considerations of

Place, Boundaries, and Identity. European Urban and Regional Studies, 8 (1): 7-

28

Portela, C., 2010. The Perception of the European Union in Southeast Asia: low

priority statuses and selectivity. Asia Eur Journal, 8: 149-160

Prentice et. al., 1998. Tourism as Experience: the case of Heritage Parks. Annals

of Tourism Research, 25 (1): 1-24

Pretes, M., 2003. Tourism and Nationalism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (1):

125-142

Richards, G., 2008. A New Cultural Tourism for a New Europe? Annals of

Tourism Research, 418-422

Roth, F., 2009. Who Can be Trusted after the Financial crisis? CEPS Working

Document, 322: 1-32

Rowell, D., 2011. Common borders and the Schengen Agreement – Another

Possible European Failure?” [Online]. Available from:

38

http://blog.thetravelinsider.info/2011/12/common-borders-and-the-

schengen-agreement-another-possible-european-failure.html [] Accessed 23

March 2014].

Taormina, S., 2009. Why Cultural Heritage Matters for Europe. Policy document

for Europa Nostra at the Europa Nostra Annual Congress on 3 June. 2009 in Italy

Timothy, D. J., 2001. Tourism and Political Boundaries, London: Routledge

Trillas, F., 2013. Are Sovereignty referenda a good idea in a borderless Europe?

[Online] Available from:

http://realprogressinenglish.blogspot.in/2013/03/are-sovereignty-referenda-

good-idea-in.html [Accessed 19 March 2014].

UNESCO., 2013. World Heritage List, [Online]. Available from:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list [Accessed 17 March 2014].

Vin., 2013. Train Travel Exeperiences in Europe [Online]. Available from:

http://www.travelsnapstories.com/2013/10/train-travel-experiences-in-

europe/ [Accessed 23 March 2014].

Vin., 2014. Self- Drive Tour Experience in Europe. [Online]. Available from:

http://www.travelsnapstories.com/2014/03/self-drive-tour-in-europe/

[Accessed 19 March 2014].

Wise, J. M., 2000. Home: Territory and Identity. Cultural Studies, 14 (2): 295-310

Chapter 4

Checkel, J. T. and Katzenstein, P. J., 2009. European Identity, New York:

Cambridge University Press