Современные проблемы сервиса и туризма, 2018, том 12, № 4
научно-практический журнал
Бесплатно
Основная коллекция
Тематика:
Туристический бизнес
Издательство:
Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса
Наименование: Современные проблемы сервиса и туризма
Год издания: 2018
Кол-во страниц: 144
Дополнительно
Тематика:
ББК:
- 6543: Экономика общественного питания. Экономика гостиничного хозяйства. Экономика туризма
- 758: Туризм. Альпинизм
- 77: Социокультурная деятельность в сфере досуга
УДК:
- 338: Эк. положение. Эк. политика. Управление и планирование в эк-е. Производство. Услуги. Цены
- 379: Досуг. Туризм
ГРНТИ:
Скопировать запись
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