Книжная полка Сохранить
Размер шрифта:
А
А
А
|  Шрифт:
Arial
Times
|  Интервал:
Стандартный
Средний
Большой
|  Цвет сайта:
Ц
Ц
Ц
Ц
Ц

Современные проблемы сервиса и туризма, 2018, том 12, № 4

научно-практический журнал
Бесплатно
Основная коллекция
Артикул: 766239.0001.99
Современные проблемы сервиса и туризма : научно-практический журнал. - Москва : Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, 2018. - Т. 12, № 4. - 144 с. - ISSN 1995-0411. - Текст : электронный. - URL: https://znanium.ru/catalog/product/1819832 (дата обращения: 29.03.2024)
Фрагмент текстового слоя документа размещен для индексирующих роботов. Для полноценной работы с документом, пожалуйста, перейдите в ридер.
Современные проблемы 
сервиса и туризма

Научно-практический журнал

2018
Том 12 № 4

УЧРЕДИТЕЛЬ:
Федеральное государственное 
бюджетное образовательное 
учреждение высшего образования 
«Российский
государственный университет
туризма и сервиса» (Москва). 
Журнал основан в 2007 г. 
Выходит 4 раза в год.

ОСНОВНЫЕ СВЕДЕНИЯ
О ЖУРНАЛЕ:
DOI: 10.24411/1995-0411
ISSN: 1995-0411
eISSN: 2414-9063
Зарегистрирован в Федеральной 
службе по надзору за соблюдением 
законодательства в сфере массовых 
коммуникаций и охране культурного 
наследия (свид-во о регистрации СМИ 
ПИФС77-31758 от 25.04.2008 г.). 
Включен в Перечень ведущих 
рецензируемых научных журналов и 
изданий ВАК РФ, в которых могут быть 
опубликованы основные результаты 
диссертационных исследований.
Включён в наукометрические 
базы РИНЦ, ERIH PLUS, EBSCO, 
Google Scholar, UlrichsWeb и др., 
индексируется в базе данных научной 
электронной библиотеки eLibrary.ru.

Ссылки на журнал при цитировании 
обязательны. Редколлегия не всегда 
разделяет высказанные авторами 
публикаций мнения, позиции, 
положения, но предоставляет 
возможность для научной дискуссии.

ПОДПИСКА НА ЖУРНАЛ:
Индекс в объединенном каталоге 
«Пресса России» – Р81607;
через Интернет на сайтах arpk.org, 
pressa-rf.ru, ural-press.ru, delpress.ru; 
редакторская подписка: 
editor@spst-journal.org

КОНТАКТЫ:
Адрес редакции: 141221, РФ, 
Московская обл., Пушкинский р-н, 
д.п. Черкизово, ул. Главная, 99, к.1.
Тел./факс: (495) 940-83-61, 62, 63,  
доб. 395; моб. +7(967) 246-35-69
Web: http://spst-journal.org
e-mail: redkollegiaMGUS@mail.ru, 
editor@spst-journal.org

ОТПЕЧАТАНО:
ГУП МО «Коломенская типография», 
100400, МО, г. Коломна, 
ул. 3-го Интернационала, 2а.
Тел.: (496)618-60-16
http://www.kolomna-print.ru
Усл.печ.л. 11,38. Тираж 500 экз. 
Заказ № 709.

ПЕРЕВОД: 
Афанасьева А.В. – к.геогр.н., доц.

ГЛАВНЫЙ РЕДАКТОР

Афанасьев О.Е. – Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса,  
лауреат Государственной премии Украины в области образования, д.геогр.н., проф.

РЕДАКЦИОННЫЙ СОВЕТ

Федулин А.А. – ректор Российского государственного университета туризма и сервиса, 
д.ист.н., профессор, Председатель редакционного совета;
Сафаралиев Г.К. – депутат ГД Федерального Собрания РФ, член-корреспондент РАН, 
д.физ.-мат.н., проф.
Шпилько С.П. – Президент Российского Союза Туриндустрии, член Делового совета 
Всемирной туристической организации (UNWTO), к.экон.н.
Александрова А.Ю. – Московский государственный университет им. М.В. Ломоносова, 
Лауреат Премии Правительства Российской Федерации в области туризма, д.геогр.н., 
проф.
Ветитнев А.М. – Сочинский государственный университет, д.экон.н., проф.
Платонова Н.А. – Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, 
д.экон.н., проф.
Ульянченко Л.А. – Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, 
д.экон.н., проф.

МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ РЕДАКЦИОННЫЙ СОВЕТ

Андрадес-Калдито Л. – Университет Эстремадуры (Испания), координатор NETOUR, 
PhD, проф.
Бейдик А.А. – Киевский национальный университет им. Тараса Шевченко (Украина), 
д.геогр.н., проф.
Влодарчик Б. – Лодзинский университет (Польша), директор Института географии 
городов и туризма, PhD, проф.
Диманш Ф. – Университет Райерсона (Канада), директор Школы гостеприимства и 
туристического менеджмента Теда Роджерса, PhD, проф.
Дуайер Л. – Университет Нового Южного Уэльса (Австралия), PhD, проф.
Иванов С.Х. – Варненский университет менеджмента (Болгария), PhD, проф.
Корстанье М.Э. – Университет Палермо (Аргентина), PhD, ст. науч. сотр.
Милева-Божанова С.В. – Софийский университет Святого Климента Охридского 
(Болгария), PhD, проф.
Мюллер Д. – Университет Умео (Швеция), PhD, проф.
Неделиа А.-М. – Сучавский университет им. Штефана чел Маре (Румыния), PhD, доц.
Пулидо-Фернандес Х.И. – Университет Хаэна (Испания), PhD, проф.
Радж Р. – Городской университет Лидса (Великобритания), PhD
Речкоски Р. – Государственный университет Святого Климента Охридского (Македония), 
д.юрид.н., проф.
Сааринен Я.Ю. – Университет Оулу (Финляндия), вице-президент Международного 
географического союза (IGU), PhD, проф.
Сигала М. – Университет Южной Австралии (Австралия), PhD, проф.
Теркенли Ф. – Университет Эгейского моря (Греция), PhD, проф.
Тюрнер Л.У. – Университет Виктории (Австралия), PhD, проф.-исслед.
Уонхилл С.Р.Ч. – Лимерикский университет (Ирландия), PhD, адъюнкт-проф.
Фу Я.-И. – Индианский университет – Университет Пердью в Индианаполисе (США), 
PhD, доц.
Холл К.М. – Университет Кентербери (Новая Зеландия), PhD, проф.
Хью-Августис С. – Государственный университет Болл (США), PhD, проф.
Шовал Н. – Еврейский университет в Иерусалиме (Израиль), PhD, проф.

РЕДАКЦИОННАЯ КОЛЛЕГИЯ

Вапнярская О.И. – Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, 
к.экон.н., доц.
Кривошеева Т.М. – Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, 
к.экон.н., доц.
Лагусев Ю.М. – Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, д.пед.н., 
проф.
Морозов М.А. – Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации, 
д.экон.н., проф.
Николаев Е.М. – Московский гуманитарный университет, генеральный директор 
Группы компаний «Путешественник-traveller», к.экон.н., доц.
Саенко Н.Р. – Московский политехнический университет, д.филос.н., проф.

ОТВЕТСТВЕННЫЙ СЕКРЕТАРЬ: Афанасьева А.В. – к.геогр.н., доц.

Service & Tourism: 
Current Challenges 

Scientific and practical journal

2018
Vol. 12 № 4

PUBLISHER:
Russian State University 
of Tourism and Service (RF, Moscow). 
Founded in 2007.
Published 4 issues a year.

BASIC INFORMATION
ABOUT THE JOURNAL:
DOI: 10.24411/1995-0411
ISSN: 1995-0411
eISSN: 2414-9063
Journal registered by the Federal Service 
for Supervision of Legislation in Mass 
Communications and Cultural Heritage 
Protection, RF
(Reg. ПИФС 77-21758 issued 
25.04.2008).
Peer-reviewed journal.
The journal was included in the list of 
the leading peer-reviewed scientific 
journals recommended by the Higher 
Attestation Commission for publication 
of thesis results.
The journal is included in the Russian 
Science Citation Index, ERIH PLUS, 
Google Scholar, UlrichsWeb, etc.
The journal is available in the Scientific 
Electronic Library (http://elibrary.ru).
All rights reserved. 
Citation with reference only.
Disclaimer: http://stcc-journal.org/
index/disclaimer/0-36

CONTACTS:
Editorial office: 141221, Russia, Moscow 
region, Pushkino district, village 
Cherkizovo, 99 Glavnaja str., build. 1.
Tel./fax: +7.495.940 8361, 62, 63,  
add. 395; mob. +7.967.246 3569
Web: http://stcc-journal.org
e-mail: redkollegiaMGUS@mail.ru, 
 editor@spst-journal.org

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY:
Alexandra V. Afanasieva, 
PhD in Geography

INTERPRETER:
Alexandra V. Afanasieva, 
PhD in Geography

EDITORS
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Oleg E. Afanasiev – Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF, Moscow), PhD (Dr.
Sc.) in Geography, Professor, Laureate of the State Prize of Ukraine in the sphere of education

EDITORIAL COUNCIL

Alexander A. Fedulin – Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF, Moscow), 
PhD (Dr.Sc.) in History, Professor, Chairman of Editorial Council
Gadzhimet K. Safaraliev – Chairman of the State Duma RF (RF, Moscow), PhD (Dr.Sc.), Professor
Sergey P. Shpil’ko – Chairman of Moscow Tourism Committee (RF, Moscow), President of 
the Russian Union of Travel Industry, member of the Business Council of the World Tourism 
Organization, PhD in Economics
Anna Yu. Aleksandrova – Lomonosov Moscow State University (RF, Moscow), PhD (Dr.Sc.) 
in Geography, Professor
Alexander M. Vetitnev – Sochi State University (RF, Sochi), PhD (Dr.Sc.) in Economics, Professor
Nataliya A. Platonova – Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF, Moscow), PhD 
(Dr.Sc.) in Economics, Professor
Ljudmila A. Ulyanchenko – Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF, Moscow), 
PhD (Dr.Sc.) in Economics, Professor

INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL COUNCIL

Lidia Andrades-Caldito – University of Extremadura (Spain, Caceres), NeTour Coordinator, 
PhD in Economics, Professor
Аlexander A. Bejdyk – Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Ukraine, Kyiv), PhD (Dr.
Sc.) in Geography, Professor
Frederic Dimanche – Ryerson University (Canada, Toronto), Director of the Ted Rogers 
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, PhD, Professor
Larry Dwyer – University of New South Wales (Australia, Sydney), School of Marketing, Australian Business School, PhD, Professor
Yao-Yi Fu – Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (USA, Indianapolis), PhD, 
Associate Professor
C. Michael Hall – University of Canterbury (New Zealand, Christchurch), PhD, Professor
Sotiris Hji-Avgoustis – Ball State University (USA, Muncie, Indiana), PhD, Professor
Stanislav H. Ivanov – Varna University of Management (Bulgaria, Varna), Vice Rector for 
Academic Affairs and Research, PhD, Professor
Maximiliano E. Korstanje – University of Palermo (Argentina, Buenos Aires), PhD, Senior 
Researchers
Sonia V. Mileva-Bojanova – Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” (Bulgaria, Sofia), PhD 
(Dr.Sc.), Professor
Dieter K. Müller – Umea University (Sweden, Umea), PhD, Professor
Alexandru-M. Nedelea – Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava (Romania, Suceava), PhD, 
Associate Professor
Juan I. Pulido-Fernandez – University of Jaen (Spain, Jaen), PhD, Associate Professor
Razaq Raj – Leeds Beckett University (UK, Leeds), PhD
Risto Rechkoski – State University “Sv.Kliment Ohridski” (FYROM/Macedonia, Bitola, Ohrid), 
PhD (Dr.Sc.) in Law, Professor
Jarkko J. Saarinen – University of Oulu (Finland, Oulu), Vice-President of the International 
Geographical Union (IGU), PhD, Professor
Noam Shoval – Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel, Jerusalem), PhD, Professor
Marianna Sigala – University of South Australia (Australia, Adelaide), PhD, Professor
Theano S. Terkenli – University of the Aegean (Greece, Mytilene), PhD, Professor
Lindsay W. Turner – Victoria University (Australia, Melbourne), College of Business, PhD, 
Research Professor
Stephen R.C. Wanhill – University of Limerick (Ireland, Limerick), PhD, Adjunct Professor
Bogdan Wlodarczyk – University of Lodz (Poland, Lodz), Director of the Institute of Urban 
and Tourism, PhD, Professor

EDITORIAL BOARD

Ol’ga I. Vapnyarskaya – Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF, Moscow), PhD 
in Economics, Associate Professor
Tatiana M. Krivosheeva – Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF, Moscow), PhD 
in Economics, Associate Professor
Yuriy M. Lagusev – Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RF, Moscow), PhD (Dr.
Sc.) in Pedagogic, Professor
Mikhail A. Morozov – Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation 
(RF, Moscow), PhD (Dr.Sc.) in Economics, Professor
Evgeniy M. Nikolaev – Moscow University for the Humanities (RF, Moscow), Director General of Tourism of the “Puteshestvennik-Traveller”, PhD in Economics, Associate Professor
Natalya R. Saenko – Moscow Polytechnic University (RF, Moscow), PhD (Dr.Sc.) in Philosophy, Professor

Содержание

5
КОЛОНКА ГЛАВНОГО РЕДАКТОРА 

Проблемы территориального туристского брендинга: мировой и российский опыт

7
ЛОКАЛЬНОЕ В ГЛОБАЛЬНОМ: ФОРМУЛА ТУРИЗМА 

7
Джордж Б., Хенторн Т., Корстанье М. 
Историческое развитие туризма Кубы: экономические тренды и перспективы

25
Родькин П. Е.
Брендинг территории: к проблеме репрезентации и бренд-идентификации

35
Новичков Н. В. 
12 ошибок туристического брендирования территорий

41
Аигина Е. В. 
Сверхтуризм и туризмофобия: новые явления или старые проблемы?

56
Александрова А. Ю. 
Сверхтуризм и туризмофобия в европейских городах-дестинациях (кейс Барселоны)

69
Голубчиков Ю. Н., Краюхин А. Н., Кружалин В. И., Тикунов В. С.
Национальный туристический атлас как инструмент имиджевого возвышения России

77
РЕГИОНАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ РАЗВИТИЯ ТУРИСТСКОГО СЕРВИСА 

77
Леонидова Е. Г.
Повышение эффективности региональных туристических брендов

86
Макринова Е. И., Иваницкая Т. Ю.
Мотивационная модель формирования туристского имиджа территории в региональном аспекте

97
Полынский А. С.
Региональный опыт разработки бренда территорий: амбиция «Омская область –  регион, 
привлекательный для туризма»

106
РЕГИОНАЛЬНЫЕ СТУДИИ ТУРИЗМА 

106
Лейман И. И.
Возможности и направления формирования бренда территории  
(на примере Республики Коми)

119
Дьяконова М. В., Родионова А. П.
Язык и культура карел как бренд развития малых территорий  
(на примере этнолокальной группы карел-людиков)

134
НОВЫЕ ТУРИСТСКИЕ ЦЕНТРЫ 

134
Голубничая С. Н., Мишечкин Г. В.
Формирование туристского бренда города Донецка: история, проблемы и перспективы

Content

5
EDITOR’S NOTE 

Place branding in tourism: World and Russian experience

7
LOCAL IN GLOBAL: FORMULA FOR TOURISM 

7
George B., Henthorne T., Korstanje M. 
Cuba’s historical tryst with economic development and future pathways

25
Rodkin P. E. 
Place branding: The problem of representation and brand-identification

35
Novichkov N. V. 
12 mistakes of place branding in tourism

41
Aigina E. V. 
Overtourism and tourismophobia: New phenomena or old problems?

56
Aleksandrova A.Yu.
Overtourism and tourismofobia in European cities-destinations  
(The case of Barcelona)

69
Golubchikov Yu.N., Krayukhin A. N., Kruzhalin V. I., Tikunov V. S.
National Atlas of Tourism as a tool for image-rise of Russia

77
REGIONAL ISSUES OF TOURISM SERVICE 

77
Leonidova E. G.
Improving the efficiency of regional tourism brands

86
Makrinova E. I., Ivanitskaya T. Yu.
A motivational model of creating tourism image of the territory: The regional aspect

97
Polynskiy A. S.
Regional experience in developing a brand of territories:  
Ambition “Omsk Region is an attractive region for tourism”

106
REGIONAL TOURISM STUDIES 

106
Leyman I. I.
Opportunities and directions of forming a brand territory  
(The case of the Komi Republic)

119
Dyakonova M. V., Rodionova A. P.
Language and culture as the brand of the small territories development  
(The case of etnolocal grouppe of Ludians).

134
NEW TOURIST CENTERS 

134
Mishechkin G. V., Golubnichaya S. N.
Forming the tourist brand of Donetsk: history, problems and prospects

КОЛОНКА ГЛАВНОГО РЕДАКТОРА 
 

EDITOR’S NOTE

ПРОБЛЕМЫ ТЕРРИТОРИАЛЬНОГО  
ТУРИСТСКОГО БРЕНДИНГА:  
МИРОВОЙ И РОССИЙСКИЙ ОПЫТ

В теории и практике туристской деятельности имеется одно из наиболее противоречивых, общественно-резонансных и сложных 
направлений –  территориальный туристский 
брендинг.
Сегодня у абсолютного большинства 
стран мира, а также регионов и городов, которые стремятся быть туристско-привлекательными дестинациями, имеется собственный 
туристский бренд. Многие из них периодически проводят процедуру ребрендинга, предлагая общественности новый вариант бренда. Бренды же других отличаются завидной 
стабильностью и неизменностью в течение 
долгих лет. Одни туристские бренды более 
успешны и популярны, широко известны 
и визуально узнаваемы. Но имеется и много 
примеров брендов, которые не смогли выйти 
дальше пределов творческих студий и сайтов 
их создателей или заказчиков, оказались 
отвергнутыми и не принятыми той целевой 
аудиторией, для которой изначально предназначались. И, что немаловажно, одной из 
главных особенностей проекта практически 
любого территориального туристского бренда 
является то, что кто-то будет всегда в восторге 
от него, а кто-то обязательно увидит в нем 
не то, что задумали авторы и разработчики, 
и будет всячески его отторгать.
В чем заключается секрет успеха территориального туристского бренда? Почему 
туристские бренды одних регионов и городов 
становятся широко известны, зачастую даже 
без особых финансовых затрат на их «раскрутку», а другие и при многомиллионных 
вложениях оказываются невостребованными? Да и в принципе, насколько оправданными являются ожидания, возлагаемые на 
туристский бренд? Так ли уж важна роль 
лого-бренда, слогана, брендбука для потенциального расширения туристского потенциала и возрастания турпотока?
Последний в 2018 году выпуск журнала 
«Современные проблемы сервиса и туриз
PLACE BRANDING  
IN TOURISM: WORLD AND 
RUSSIAN EXPERIENCE

Place branding in tourism is one of the 
most controversial, socially resonant and complex areas in the theory and practice of tourism 
activities.
Today, the absolute majority of countries 
of the world, as well as regions and cities aspiring to be attractive tourist destinations, have 
their own tourism brand. Many of them periodically conduct a rebranding procedure, offering 
the public a new version of the brand. Other 
brands are distinguished by enviable stability 
and unchanged for many years. Some tourism 
brands are more successful and popular, widely 
known and visually recognizable. But there are 
many examples of brands unable to go beyond 
creative studios and sites of their creators or 
customers. These brands were rejected by their 
target audience. We should note the important 
feature of the project of virtually any territorial brand in tourism: someone will always be 
delighted with it, and someone will definitely 
see in it not what the authors and developers 
have conceived, and will be in every possible 
way to reject it.
What makes territorial tourist brand successful? Why the tourism brands of some 
regions and cities become widely known, 
often without much financial expenditures on 
their “promotion”, while others, with multimillion investments, are not in demand? And 
in principle, to what extent the initial expectation for the tourist brand are justified? Is 
the role of logo-brand, slogan, and brand 
book so important for the potential expansion of tourism potential and increasing the 
tourist flow?
This issue of the journal «Service & Tourism: Current Challenges», last in 2018, the 
editors decided to devote to the problems of 
space branding in tourism. And surprisingly, this 
idea and the moment of the journal’s release 
coincided with appearance of the Russia’s first 
officially approved tourism brand, initiated by 
the Federal Agency for Tourism and created by 

ма» редакция решила посвятить именно 
проблематике территориального туристского 
брендинга. И удивительным образом эта 
идея и момент выхода журнала совпали со 
временем, когда у России впервые появился официально утвержденный туристский 
бренд, созданный по инициативе Ростуризма 
большим творческим коллективом ведущих 
и известнейших отечественных дизайнеров. Горячие дискуссии, бурные обсуждения, 
споры в отношении графического решения, 
масса негативных и множество позитивных 
мнений вокруг концепции турбренда России –  это та тема, которой жило профессиональное туристское сообщество весь 
2018 год. Очевидно, что эта тема останется 
в мейнстриме и в следующем году. Будет ли 
успешным этот проект первого российского 
туристского бренда –  покажет время, а дать 
итоговую оценку ему надлежит все же не 
профессионалам от сферы дизайна и даже не 
туристскому профсообществу, а конечному 
потребителю –  российскому и зарубежному 
туристу, который сможет разглядеть в нем 
что-то свое, что сподвигнет его на собственном опыте убедиться в постулате «Россия – 
здесь целый мир».
Богатейший мировой опыт территориального туристского брендинга, вполне 
достойные примеры региональных и муниципальных туристских брендов, имеющихся 
в России –  это то, что заслуживает тщательного изучения. И это тематический интерес 
авторов статей, размещенных в текущем 
выпуске журнала. Редакция будет рада, если 
изложенные на страницах выпуска мысли 
и идеи послужат положительной задаче развития теории и практики туристского брендинга, станут основой для диалога и дискуссий в наступающем 2019 году.
Новый год обязательно принесет всем 
нашим читателям что-то новое, откроет нечто 
интересное, расширит горизонты познания. 
А именно для этих целей и существуют туристские бренды. Так пусть же Вам в новом 
году встречается как можно больше разных 
туристских брендов!

Главный редактор, д. геогр. н., проф.  
О. Е. Афанасьев

a large creative team of leading and well-known 
domestic designers.
Hot discussions and disputes regarding 
graphic solutions, a lot of negative and many 
positive opinions about the concept of the 
Russian tourism brand are the most important 
topic for the professional tourism community 
in 2018. Obviously, this topic will remain the 
relevant next year. Time will tell whether this 
project of the first Russian tourism brand will 
be successful. It should be appreciated not 
by professionals from the field of design, and 
not by the professional tourism community, 
but firstly the end consumer, the Russian and 
foreign tourists, who, with the help of this 
brand, on their own experience will be able to 
make sure of the postulate “The whole World 
within Russia”.
The richest world experience of territorial 
tourist branding, quite well-known examples of 
regional and municipal tourism brands available 
in Russia is something that deserves careful 
study. And this is the thematic interest of the 
authors of articles published in the current issue 
of the journal. The editorial board will be glad if 
the thoughts and ideas presented on the pages 
of the issue serve for the development of the 
theory and practice of tourism branding, will 
become the basis for dialogue and discussion 
in the coming 2019.
The new year will surely bring something 
new to all our readers, discover something 
interesting, and expand the horizons of knowledge. Tourism brands namely are intended for 
these purposes. So we wish you to meet in 
the new year as many different tourist brands 
as possible!

Editor-in-chief, Prof.  
Oleg E. Afanasiev

ЛОКАЛЬНОЕ В ГЛОБАЛЬНОМ: ФОРМУЛА ТУРИЗМА  

LOCAL IN GLOBAL: FORMULA FOR TOURISM

Babu GEORGE a,
Tony HENTHORNE b,
Maximiliano E. KORSTANJE c 

UDC / УДК 338.48(729.1)
DOI: 10.24411/1995-0411-2018-10401

a Fort Hays State University (Hays, KS, USA); PhD; e-mail: bpgeorge@fhsu.edu

b University of Nevada (Las Vegas, NV, USA), PhD, e-mail: tony.henthorne@unlv.edu

c University of Palermo (Buenos Aires, Argentina); PhD; e-mail: mkorst@palermo.edu

CUBA’S HISTORICAL TRYST WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 
AND FUTURE PATHWAYS

This paper inspects the historical development of Cuba put against its challenges in promoting tourism. Due 
to internal and external pressures, the economic development opportunities for Cuba were largely limited 
to tourism –  despite the best efforts by the Cuban authorities to diversify its economy. Drawing insights 
from the strategy literature, the competitive advantage of Cuba in tourism is explained. We trace the 
pathways the Cuban economy and society took in Cuba’s its tryst with tourism as the primary development 
driver. Particular thrust is given to Cuba –  Soviet bonhomie and the “special period”. We conclude the 
discussion by highlighting the hope that Obama kindled and the fears that Trump brought back in.
Keywords: Economic development, Soviet Union, Special Period, Competitive advantage, Tourism, Cuba.

Introduction

Cuba has always been a popular destination for the American tourists. US Prohibition in the 1920s made Americans find in 
Cuba a place to escape to. American tourists 
did not hate Cuba, even during the bitterest 
days in the US-Cuba relations. The political 
taint just made Americans to see Cuba as a 
forbidden fruit. As we write this book, the 
American policy towards Cuba is flip-flopping. After a short stint of friendliness during 
the presidency of Obama, there was anxiety how the new administration would deal 
with Cuba (Romeu, 2014). President Donald 
Trump (2017-) is yet to make a clear stance, 
but his interim directives have made travel 
to Cuba harder.
It is not often history but hopes that 
shape tourism development. There is widespread hope about the future of tourism in 
Cuba. Many multinational hotel developers 
have expressed interest in investing in the 
hospitality sector. As of now, Cuba does not 
have the tourism-focused infrastructure to 
support any more additional tourists, even 
during the off-peak seasons. Professionalism 
in the industry is yet to be developed and matured. The tourism product in Cuba right now 
is in a state of flux. Even when a small cruise 

ship brings a couple of hundred visitors, 
coastal cities are overwhelmed. Notwithstanding, the Cuban authorities are presumptuous about their ability to handle any number of additional visitors. If American tourists 
to Cuba increase, it will not be easy to provide 
them with the required facilities.
Something that every other Caribbean 
island nations look forward is to see how the 
relaxing US embargo on Cuba would affect 
them (Henthorne, George, & Miller, 2016). 
Many of these countries were beneficiaries of 
the embargo. It is not evident that they have 
any plans to deal with Cuba’s re-ascent into 
the tourism map. Some experts, however, are 
of the view that there are enough tourists to 
meet the targets set for the Caribbean and 
that it won’t be Cuba, if any, that is hurting 
overall tourism demand for the Caribbean.
There are perplexing signals coming from Cuba. With the Venezuelan crisis, 
gasoline is already being rationed in Cuba. 
The Cuban economy fell overall in 2016, 
despite a significant hike in tourism related 
revenue. Cuba cannot import even essential 
commodities due to its fast-emptying foreign exchange reserves. The quickest way 
to replenish foreign exchange probably is 
tourism. But, Cuban authorities are taking 

Babu GEORGE, Tony HENTHORNE, Maximiliano E. KORSTANJE 
Стр. 7–24

a cautious approach, especially given the 
socio-cultural and environmental impacts of 
unleashing tourism. That said, there is also a 
heightened realization that the country cannot continue to survive on subsidies from 
foreign governments.
Cuba’s first tourism heyday in the 1950s 
is well known, as is the industry’s collapse in 
the face of the U.S. economic embargo initiated in the 1960s. The “new age” of Cuban international tourism development dates to the 
mid-1970s (Miller and Henthorne 1997), but 
gained new urgency as the country entered 
the “Special Period” of economic near-collapse, following the fall of the Soviet Union, in 
the late 1980s and early 1990s.
In 1988, the Spanish tourism corporation Meliá entered into Cuba’s first modern 
joint venture with the then-recently formed 
Cuban para-state corporation Cubanacán. 
Between 1993 and 1994, policy-makers targeted the three most promising sectors of 
the Cuban economy as the sugar industry, 
biotechnology, and tourism. With, to date, 
modest returns in the biotechnology sector, 
and major setbacks in the country’s sugar 
industry, the country’s tourism industry has 
assumed a central position in the national 
economy.
The scramble to expand the country’s 
international tourism industry dramatically 
in the early years led to many mistakes, including sub-standard construction, uncontrolled sex tourism, tumultuous relations 
with international investment partners, and 
poorly trained service staffs (Henthorne & 
George, 2009). Government planners rapidly 
expanded the number of hotel rooms, but 
with relatively little attention to other, related, supporting industries. The result was 
that, by some estimates, in the early 1990s, 
the country’s tourism industry had a multiplier of less than one –  the country lost money 
for every tourism dollar it collected. The Cuban Ministry of Tourism (MINTUR) was not 
formed until 1994, and it played a very minor 
role in tourism development and planning 
for the first years after its formation. Tourism 
development was largely fragmented and 
uncoordinated among a half-dozen national 
para-state corporations (Henthorne, George, 
& Williams, 2010).

Tourism in the Soviet Cuba

The bonhomie with the Soviet bloc 
helped resurrect the Cuban tourism in the 70s. 
Increasing number of visitors from the Soviet 
allies began to flock to Cuba. The Havana Hilton (later renamed as the Habana Libre) and 
the Riviera were the last two American hotels 
constructed before the Revolution. These and 
the other existing hotels were not sufficient to 
accommodate the sensibilities of the new visitors, and a new building boom ensued.
The Soviet Union invested heavily in 
building the much-needed hospitality infrastructure. The newly constructed hotels were 
modest in appearance, keeping in view the 
austerity expectations of typical visitors. Six 
hotels were completed in 1976, nine were 
completed in 1977, and eight were completed in 1978. By 1979, the total number 
of tourists visiting Cuba researched close to 
130,000. By 1989, Cuba was attracting over 
300,000 tourists.
Political tourism was a major form of 
tourism during this period. In its purest form, 
it happens when sympathizers of international political struggles travel to destinations of 
struggle, in solidarity with the struggle. However, tourism to Cuba from the Eastern bloc 
was more to get a glance, how much so ever 
controlled that might be, of its unique socialistic development. The source and destination 
governments incentivized it; also, the tourists 
did not want their money to go to the capitalists. Visitors to Cuba were presented with 
a fascinating view of how the state controlled 
tourism resources, products, infrastructure, 
and management in a comprehensive manner.
Guest host interactions were limited, 
and the official line was that the interactions would adulterate culture and values. 
The real reason was to prevent free flow of 
ideas, which the government feared would inflame dissent. Cuban residents constantly felt 
the pain of enacting to the tourists a life of 
freedom and abundance. In an otherwise collectivistic society, everyone began to distrust 
others and thought each other to be secret 
government agents. Yet, given the similarities 
in the institutional characteristics of socialist 
countries, tourists from the Eastern bloc felt 
at home when they traveled to Cuba. Most 
socialist countries had adopted in some form 

Современные проблемы сервиса и туризма
№ 4/2018  Том 12

9

or the other administrative systems originally 
developed by the Soviet Union.
Given the political need for controlled 
flow of ideas, Cuba encouraged group tours. 
Tourist groups were herded to particular spaces with the implicit objective of showcasing 
specific achievements of the state. Tourists 
were led to museums, housing projects, factories, farms, universities, and defense facilities 
and the narrative was mediated with the help 
of government employed interpreters. The 
vibrancy of social institutions and how that 
could not have been achieved without a revolution were always at the center of narration.
In the 1960s and 1970’s, some of the dissenting minority voices in the United States 
too found a champion in Cuba. Curious ones 
among them took trips to Havana. During 
their tour, the Americans were shown how 
their country’s policies victimized Cuba and 
how the resilience of Cubans stood against the 
US led tyranny. Even some progressive church 
groups sent their church leaders to Cuba and 
were quite impressed with the humility of 
people. They did not see or chose not to see 
the subjugation of individual liberty, persecution of sexual minorities, poverty, despotism, 
etc., in Cuba. Finally, those Americans who 
were not impressed with their own government’s policies were actively looking for alternatives and they could not but glorify the 
alternative at their next neighborhood. Many 
western intellectuals felt themselves aliens in 
their own land and found some fancy in the 
developments of Cuban political economy. 
These political pilgrims from the US became a 
key source for Cuba to get some vital foreign 
exchange, too.
By 1985, the Soviet Union was reassessing its overseas commitments. Cuba was getting close to $4.5 billion a year from USSR, in 
the form of developmental and military assistance. This was way too untenable for the 
crumbling Soviet economy. Castro was diverting part of the aid to support proletarian revolutions and regimes in various other parts of 
the world. Ironically, this was not seen favorably in the USSR. Castro’s imprints on international proletarian movements at the expense 
of USSR invited their displeasure. In 1988, 
Castro was forced to withdraw his forces from 
Angola. Cuba seemed to have anticipated 

the weakening of the Soviet Union. As early 
as 1988, there were some talks in Havana on 
mending relationships with the US. What happened however was a thaw in the US-USSR 
relations. The coming of Mikhail Gorbachev 
to power as the President of the Soviet Union 
and his friendly gestures to the US did now 
however help with the US-Cuba relations. It 
was felt as if the US would settle for nothing 
less than an absolute fall of the Castro regime.

Cuba, All Alone: Era of Overtourism
The demise of the Soviet Union in 1989 
and the subsequent dissolution of Comecon 
brought rapid and dramatic change to the people of Cuba (Morris, 2014). It inaugurated the 
Special Period (Período Especial). Imports and 
exports dropped by about 80%; GDP declined 
by around 30%. This also marked the beginning of the new era of Cuban international 
tourism. The disintegration of Soviet Union 
forced Castro to find other means of survival. 
He allowed Cubans in the US to send money 
back home to support families. Also allowed 
small businesses in certain sectors (most sectors are still largely under Army control).
With the collapse of the Social Union also 
came the departure of Soviet investments in 
Cuba. The special period is a period of near 
economic collapse in Cuba. The Cuban government which had been the sole provider of 
the fundamental needs of its citizenry terribly 
felt the heat of it. Food shortages and outages were common, gas prices peaked, citizens literally lined up to secure their rationed 
pound of rice, public services were curtailed 
or eliminated, and hospital services deteriorated. Castro took out the last remaining foreign currency savings to import bicycles from 
China. These bicycles were freely distributed 
to people for shared use.
Reliance upon tourism for economic survival is a popular alternative chosen by newly 
liberated and ex-socialist countries (Whitehead, 2016). The transition to a market oriented economy in such countries is often inaugurated with unbridled tourism promotion 
and tourist dollars provide a quick means to 
jumpstart the economy. The Brightside of it 
is that it quickly and massively brings in professional values such as customer service into 
the workforce. Also, tourism development can 

Стр. 7–24
Babu GEORGE, Tony HENTHORNE, Maximiliano E. KORSTANJE 

stimulate infrastructure development in areas 
such as transportation and communication.
Castro government’s last remaining straw 
in the 90’s was to refocus on tourism, too. Oil 
from Venezuela was thought to help stir the 
Cuban economy: but, leeching off Venezuelan 
resources had limits (Font & Jancsics, 2016)). 
Tourism businesses were reopened in massive 
numbers, again. Even the US citizens could visit Cuba, although they had to fly via another 
country. The majority of clientele came from 
the Europe, South America, and Canada. By 
1993, tourism numbers had risen to a whopping 600,000. By 1995, Cuba’s annual tourism 
revenues surpassed 1 billion USD and by the 
end of the next year, the number of visitors 
grew over 1 million. The largest visitor base 
were Canadians, over quarter of a million.
The expectations of the new segments 
were different than what the Soviet or Eastern 
bloc visitors would look for in Cuba. New kinds 
of hotel rooms, new attractions, and new 
tourist support facilities were needed. Numerous all-inclusive properties were developed to 
cater to the new tourist segments. Since the 
Cuban government did not have the money 
to invest, joint ventures with international investors began to be allowed. Spain emerged 
to become the most major trading partner in 
tourism. Even though the foreign investors 
invested all the money, the joint venture was 
framed as if it were a Cuban majority venture. 
The Cuban government’s 51 percent or more 
of stake in these ventures ensured continued 
State control over the industry.
The boom in tourism resulted in a severe 
shortage of service personnel like bar tenders, waiters, housekeepers, etc. The wages 
and tips were attractive in the tourism industry. Tips paid in the foreign currency enabled hospitality workers to fetch the luxuries 
unavailable for the others. A schoolteacher 
earning 200 Cuban pesos a month could earn 
the same amount in a day as a waiter. Those 
who were employed in professional capacities such as doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc., 
were abandoning their State supported jobs 
and turning to these newfound opportunities.
The brain drain from key scientific professions was so alarming that the government 
had to formalize employment requirements 
to work in the tourism industry (Domenech, 

2017). This led to the development of hospitality education certification and licensing. 
Hospitality job aspirants had to apply and be 
accepted into one of the training schools. The 
length and intensity of the training programs 
and the admission requirements disincentivised people in other professions to join the 
hospitality trade.
The school authorities would direct the 
candidates to various specialization areas in 
the industry. The schools also assigned the 
graduates to particular properties to work. 
The Cuban government collected a management fee in foreign currency from the overseas 
hotel investors and the wages of the Cuban 
workers were paid by the government in Cuban pesos. Elements of centralized vocational 
planning percolated throughout this process.
The special period’s austerity requirements were unbearable, and people looked 
for opportunities outside of the formalized 
economic peripheries (Hill & Tanaka, 2016). 
Prostitution comes to mind. During the rule of 
Batista, prostitution was prevalent among the 
poor rural women. Just before Castro came to 
power, Cuba had more than hundred thousand prostitutes. More than a couple of thousands of men found job as pimps. This came 
to a sudden stop during the rule of Castro, until the Special Period. With tourism back in the 
center point of economic development in the 
1990’s and beyond, the evils of tourism began 
to resurface. Tourism exacerbated the wealth 
differences and equivalent master-slave social 
relationships and prostitution reappeared as 
a primary manifestation of the same. Tourists 
could take prostitutes to casas particulares 
rentable for less than ten dollars, even though 
most established hotels still don’t provide the 
service of prostitutes. It is not uncommon Cuban Police officers tracking prostitutes, not to 
bring them to law but to collect bribe to supplant their skimpy salaries. The proliferation 
of “love hotels” benefitted the locals, many 
of them lived in cramped settings. Especially 
with children around, making love was hard. 
After making some savings, Cuban couples 
rented rooms in government / military owned 
motels called posadas for hourly rates and engaged in intimate relationship. Some of these 
private rooms were sold for a little over five 
dollars for three hours.

Современные проблемы сервиса и туризма
№ 4/2018  Том 12

11

The term jineterismo refers to illegal economic activities related to tourism in Cuba. 
While prostitution and pimping were not legalized, it continued to happen and the authorities did not police. Jineterismo appeared 
in various other forms such as unregulated 
tour guiding, informal renting of personal 
cars, and selling counterfeit goods. Jineteros, 
those who practiced jineterismo, spoke English and became the interface between tourists and the Cuban people. Even during the 
embargo, Spaniards and Canadians sought 
prostitutes; some explicitly demanded underage boys and girls. In the special period, sex 
tourism and child sex tourism skyrocketed. 
Cuba was cheaper. It was closer, especially for 
those in the North America. Cuba’s achievements in public health meant prostitutes 
were less likely to have STDs.
International tourism and visitors to 
Cuba expanded dramatically, pouring much 
needed hard currency into the island coffers. However, as noted elsewhere, the hemisphere’s largest and most wealthy visitor 
base, the U.S., was very minimal in presence. 
The big growth in international tourism to 
Cuba missed the US customers and the industry players. The first new property opened 
in Cuba in the post-Soviet era was the Spain 
based Melia properties owned Cohiba hotel. 
There has been continued all-inclusive property boom in Varadero and neighboring areas, but with no US or USSR presence. This is 
a remarkable period, in that respect. Cuba is 
now faced with the need to find tourism revenue from tourist originating countries other 
than their original sources. Austere properties have given way to beach holiday centered 
‘sun and fun’ properties. Spain continued to 
maintain its key investor status, but countries 
like Mexico, Canada, Jamaica, UK, and Germany too showed interest in the Cuban tourism.
All-inclusive resort based tourism meant 
less spending outside these properties and 
less movement of tourists. By international 
comparison, these properties were priced low 
and hence became very popular for the price 
conscious tourists. Despite significant quality 
improvements, there existed very little product differentiation across these properties. 
Market segmentation did not exist, for the 
most part. This period also saw the beginning 

of resort development in the Cuban keys, 
such as Cayo Coco, Cayo Guillermo, and Cayo 
Laro. These added an extra flair to the Cuban 
tourism.
International Terminal 3 of the Jose Marti international airport in Havana was built in 
1998. This tremendously expanded the international connectivity to Cuba. Alongside, 
secondary airports such as those in Varadero 
and Santiago de Cuba began to cater to international airliners. With these, it became so 
much easier for an international traveler to 
reach Cuba.
Notwithstanding Cuba’s distaste for capitalism, it has experimented with various forms 
of private sector. This mainly included self-employed single entrepreneurs, private farmers, 
agricultural co-operatives, and non-agricultural cooperatives. Self-employment is available 
in 201 strictly defined categories. Joint ventures in Cuba are neither in the private sector 
nor in the government sector. Since more than 
half of the ownership stake in them is with the 
government, it is safer to classify them as state 
owned. Employees in these joint venture companies are sourced from a government controlled employment exchange, too.

Theoretical Explanation of the Cuban 
Competitive Advantage

Cluster Theory. Porter (2000) offers a 
succinct definition of the central idea contained in industrial clustering: “A cluster is a 
geographically proximate group of interconnected companies and associated institutions 
in a particular field, linked by commonalities 
and complementarities” (p 15). The nations 
or regions that are most competitive in the 
global economy today, this theory suggests, 
are those which are characterized by such 
clusters of industries.
Cluster theory remains a very productive 
field within the general economic development literature, generating both extensions to 
and critiques of Porter’s original theory. One 
of the major areas of criticism of cluster theory today concerns its application to emerging economies. At best, such economies are 
likely to possess only incomplete industrial 
clusters and be fueled more by external, rather than internal demand. Additionally, such 
economies are more dependent on external 

Стр. 7–24
Babu GEORGE, Tony HENTHORNE, Maximiliano E. KORSTANJE 

investment by multinational corporations 
(Clancy, O’Malley, and O’Connell 2001).
Much of the recent research literature 
focuses on operationalizing the cluster concept as a tool for rigorous analysis of regional 
industries (Henthorne & Miller, 2003). Much 
of this analysis seeks to evaluate the robustness of existing regional industrial clusters. 
That is, to what extent do the elements of a 
cluster exist, and how extensive are the interrelationships within this cluster? One technique for applying qualitative rigor to such 
cluster analysis is the use of “cluster mapping.” Cluster mapping is a graphic representation of the industrial linkages that comprise 
a given industrial cluster. The technique is 
widely employed in professional practice as 
a tool for analyzing both the strengths and 
weaknesses among such linkages. There is no 
standardized format for such maps, however, 
or the elements that are to be included.
The academic literature related to tourism clusters remains limited. Porter’s original 
1990 work extensively addresses service sector industries, but contains only one reference to the tourism industry. Later authors 
make mention of tourism clusters (Porter 
2000; Barkley and Henry 2001), but generally without elaboration. One exception is 
Martín de Holán and Phillips’ (1997) analysis 
of the then-adolescent tourism industry in 
Cuba, within a preliminary cluster framework. 
These authors concluded that Cuba’s strategy 
for tourism industry development was not 
in keeping with the leading theories of competitive advantage. Michael (2003) provides a 
more optimistic assessment of the potential 
for cluster-based tourism development within 
a micro scale of analysis. Within professional 
development practice and policy-making, 
clustering is currently one of the most important models for tourism industry development ranging across the United States and 
around the world (South African National 
Economic Development and Labour Council 
1999; Acuña, Villalobos, and Ruiz 2000; Arizona Department of Commerce 2001; Gollub, 
Hosier, and Woo 2002).
The cluster concept has been widely embraced in practice throughout Latin America 
(Porter 1991; Altenberg and Maeyer-Stamer 
1999; Canales 2001). In recent years, Cuba 

has pursued a very deliberate and explicit 
cluster-based planning model for its tourism 
development. The 1994 formation of MINTUR 
helped provide a coordinated planning function largely based on a cluster perspective 
(Durán 2000; Figueras 2001). This planning 
has been further encouraged by the work of 
Cuban economic institutions such as The National Institute for Economic Research’s Tourism Division (García 2001), and consulting 
companies such as Consultores Asociados, 
S.A. [CONAS] (Díaz 2003).
Cuban tourism planners have applied the 
cluster perspective and terminology to tourism 
development across a wide range of geographic scales, from national to neighborhood. The 
Ministry of Tourism presently identifies eight 
priority tourism development regions across 
the island, each intended to have a distinctive 
identity. Just as significant from a strategic perspective, MINTUR has deliberately excluded 
as priority clusters other areas of potential 
differentiation and development promise. 
Meanwhile, planning also includes micro scale 
analysis of clustering within the Habana Vieja 
historic district of greater Havana.
The Resource-Based View. The “resource-based view” (RBV) of management 
strategy places less emphasis on the greater 
competitive environment than does cluster 
theory and instead places more emphasis on 
the strategic resources internal to the firm 
(Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 1991, 2001). The 
RBV differentiates itself from cluster theory’s 
assumptions regarding resources in two ways. 
First, the RBV assumes that strategic resources within an industry may be heterogeneously 
distributed among firms within the industry. 
Second, the RBV assumes “¼ these resources 
may not be perfectly mobile across firms, and 
thus heterogeneity can be long lasting” (Barney 1991, p. 101).
However, not all resources may be considered of strategic importance. To provide 
sustained competitive advantage, a resource 
must have four attributes:

(a) it must be valuable, in the sense that 
it exploits opportunities and/or neutralizes 
threats in a firm’s environment; (b) it must 
be rare among a firm’s current and potential competition; (c) it must be imperfectly 

Современные проблемы сервиса и туризма
№ 4/2018  Том 12

13

imitable; and (d) there cannot be strategically 
equivalent substitutes for this resource that 
are valuable but neither rare or imperfectly 
imitable (Barney, 2001, pp. 105–6).

Compared to cluster theory, the resource-based theory of competitive advantage has been less widely employed in the 
economic development literature, as well as 
in the literature of tourism industry development. Martín de Holán and Phillips (1997) 
briefly reference some of the resource-based 
literature. Melián-Gonzlez and García-Falcón 
(2003) make more extensive and prominent 
use of this theoretical foundation in their 
analysis of competing tourism destinations 
within the Canary Islands.
For two reasons, the RBV offers particular 
promise for application in the case the Cuban 
tourism industry. First, Cuba is widely thought 
of as unusually resource rich, both in terms of 
both traditional tourism factors such as developable beaches, as well as unusual resources 
such as distinctive architecture and vintage 
automobiles. Second, in contrast to cluster 
theory, as noted above, the literature of resource-based theory is thriving in its application to emerging economies, explicitly taking 
into account the role of multinational corporations and state-owned enterprises in such 
economies (Hoskisson, et al. 2000; Peng 2001).
Is Cuba pursuing a tourism development 
strategy that is likely to be competitive and 
sustainable? This section presents an evaluation of the current state of Cuban tourism 
industry strategy, based on the combined 
perspectives of cluster and resource-based 
bodies of theory. The organization of this section is based on a cluster map of the Cuban 
tourism industry, proceeding through the individual facets of the “Porter Diamond”.
Demand Conditions. In his discussion of 
“demand conditions,” Porter places particular 
emphasis on the importance of sophisticated, 
demanding local customers. Cuba, however, 
largely lacks this local customer base with regard to the tourism industry –  at least in the 
conventional sense. It is often charged that 
Cuban citizens lack access to their own developing tourism industry. However, Cubans 
do have a long tradition of domestic tourism. 
One of the first laws following the Revolution 

established the Department of Beaches for 
the People, which was intended to encourage tourism opportunities for Cuban citizens 
within their own country. Although these accommodations may not be plush or “worldclass” in a traditional sense, they often do incorporate elements of current trends such as 
eco- and heritage-based tourism.
Cuban citizens are sophisticated in some 
of the most important factors (to be discussed 
following) that constitute the country’s vital 
strategic resources for a competitive tourism industry. For example, the quality of Cuban art and craftsmanship (such as cigars) 
contributes to a strong overall tourism product. Cubans’ knowledge of their history and 
culture has made possible the architectural 
integrity that sustains much of the island’s 
tourism image (Scarpaci, Segre, and Coyula 
2002). Cuba’s commitment to its musical traditions has resulted in a recent explosion of 
international exposure and secondary industries such as tourist-oriented music clubs. The 
most comparable international destination in 
this respect may be New Orleans. New Orleans’ reputations for architectural integrity 
(Williams 1978), distinctive music and cuisine, 
and adult nightlife have long served as that 
city’s competitive advantages for its tourism 
industry –  and the foundations for re-establishing that industry in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Related and supporting industries. Although stronger than in 1997, industrial linkages remain one of the weakest aspects of 
the development of the Cuban tourism industry. Of course, this weakness is more rule than 
exception in the tourism industries of nearly 
all developing countries, in which economic 
“leakage factors” can commonly exceed 70 
percent (Pérez-Ducy 2001; Gollub, Hosier, and 
Woo 2002).
Cuba’s own leakage factor in the 
mid-1990s was estimated as high as 75 percent (Simon 1995) and may have been even 
higher in the earliest years of Cuba’s modern 
tourism industry. In the earliest phases of 
Cuba’s modern tourism development, Cuba 
had to import nearly everything to support 
hotel development and operations, including modern plumbing and electrical fixtures, 
linens and towels, cooking equipment and 

Стр. 7–24
Babu GEORGE, Tony HENTHORNE, Maximiliano E. KORSTANJE 

serving ware, an international assortment of 
soft drinks, beer, wine, and liquor, both basic and specialized foodstuffs, and nearly all 
petroleum necessary for transportation and 
electricity generation. Simon (1995) and other observers have noted the lack of tourismrelated services available as potential linkages 
within the Cuban tourism industry complex, 
including entertainment venues, tourist-oriented retail shopping, and outlets for locally 
specialized arts and crafts.
Since that time, Cuban policy-makers 
have targeted industrial and service-industry 
linkages as important needs for competitive tourism development: both to develop 
a larger overall tourism attraction and to retain more currency earnings. There has been 
progress in this regard. Greenhouse production now supplies more of the year-round 
vegetable needs of the Cuban tourism industry. The country now produces over 95 
percent of the demand for beer and bottled 
water (Figueras 2001), along with most glass, 
aluminum, and plastic containers. There is 
now national production of more basic manufactured inputs for the tourism industry, such 
as air conditioning equipment and many textile products. In terms of services, malls in the 
principal tourism centers now sell a variety of 
international products, although still not on a 
scale that is competitive with other Caribbean 
destinations. There are more tourist-oriented 
nightclubs, museums, and other attractions.
Despite this progress, however, the 
weakness of tourism linkages –  and the concomitant leakage of tourism revenues –  remains intractable for Cuba, as in much of the 
developing world (Pattullo 1996). Tourism 
restaurant cuisine, for example, is dominated 
by international rather than Cuban cuisine. 
This is at least partly a function of mass tourist 
demand, reflecting the homogeneity of tourist cuisine across the Caribbean. The result 
for Cuba as other countries in the region is 
economic leakage and a more poorly defined 
overall tourism image, and continued necessity to purchase imported foodstuffs.
For many specialized food and beverage imports there are no local alternatives 
of adequate quality or substitutability. Other goods –  e.g., high quality manufactured 
goods, construction materials, computers, 

telecommunications equipment, meats –  may 
only be developed at the local level over the 
long term; short term, it often makes more 
economic sense to import directly than to invest in necessary capacity and production factors. Like many other Caribbean destinations, 
Cuba remains dependent upon international 
producers for taxis, buses, planes, and other 
necessary vehicular infrastructure. Even where 
the country has achieved some success –  such 
as textile or beverage production –  the economy remains dependent upon imports for the 
next round of production factors: e.g., cotton 
thread or sheet aluminum. Like nearly any other Caribbean destination, Cuba’s domestic air 
carrier –  Cubana –  must compete with many 
international carriers and charter operators.
One of the greatest sources of economic 
leakage for Cuba, like most of its smaller Caribbean competitors, remains energy. Extensive 
exploration for petroleum around the island 
has provided little return (Frank 2004a), with 
the result that Cuba is now heavily dependent 
on and deeply in debt to Venezuela. One of 
Cuba’s major hotel chains –  Gran Caribe –  announced in October 2004 that it would be 
forced to close several of its properties for 
the low season, a total of approximately 4,000 
rooms. A reported 118 factories suspended 
production (Rodríguez 2004). Energy scarcities 
present a serious challenge for the country’s 
competitive position, especially vis-à-vis energy-rich regional competitors such as Mexico.
Further, the industrial linkages that do 
exist apply only at the national scale of cluster 
analysis. Very nearly all domestic industrial 
linkages in the country link directly back to 
industries, headquarters, suppliers, and services in greater Havana. Despite the country’s 
policy of developing sub-national regional 
tourism clusters, mentioned above, these 
clusters represent little more than concentrations of hotel properties.
Possibilities do exist for strategic adaptation to address the country’s problems of linkage and leakage. For example, Cuban tourism 
development could place greater emphasis 
on eco-tourism and energy-efficient design, 
together with greater emphasis on Cuban 
cuisine and products as part of the tourism 
package. At present, in contrast, Cuba’s development efforts appear focused on the