AUGUST

T HE ERA OF GLOBALIZATION HAS

PRESENTED NEW CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE WORLD S POOR .

20 13

D ou g Cr aig

CAN PRO-POOR TOURISM REALLY HELP THOSE IN NEED ? D OES THIS TYPE OF
TOURISM EXACERBATE INEQUALITIES BETWEEN THE HAVES AND HAVE-NOTS ?

T HIS PAPER WILL EXAMINE THE IMPACT OF TOURISM IN S OUTH AFRICA S TOWNSHIPS.

SLUM TO URISM

Globalization & Development in the Global South

Research focus

Introduction The use of tourism as a tool to combat poverty in the developing world has often been hailed as a silver-bullet in the development discourse. International agencies such as the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) often work closely with other development-focused agencies to foster poverty alleviation. Indeed, tourism has even been hailed as one way to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals. In the age of globalization, it is certainly true that people today are traveling more than ever due to the global revolutions in transportation, telecommunications, and the increasing disposable income of developed countries. This perhaps represents an untapped potential for the worlds poor. In spite of this enthusiasm, there have been some unsettling contemporary developments in the tourism sector. The rise of slum tourism, or the practice of bringing rich first-worlders into direct contact with those in abject poverty, within the framework of a tour, has raised concern. Advocates for slum tourism argue that wealth will certainly flow to the poor from this interaction, and thus slum tourism should be seen as a vehicle for development. It is hypothesized that the Western demand for authentic, exotic travel experiences stimulates the creation of slum tours which

serves to maintain the North/South divide. In this way, poverty becomes commoditized and is now something which can be experienced for a cost. This highlights the disjuncture between human development and capitalism. The economic dilemma of slum tourism is that it is inherently unsustainable if the intent is to bring people out of poverty, yet if it is to be sustainable, then it requires poverty levels to stay where they are, to be experienced for the benefit of the tourist. It relies on an ongoing portrayal of an image of poverty, often of those people in the developing world who are the most disenfranchised. Thus, slum tourism serves to maintain the North/South divide and leads to economic and social divergence between tourists and the locals. To unpack this argument, this paper will first turn to the literature on poverty alleviation, tourism, and development; will clarify the argument and key variables in detail; will offer a framework of measuring divergence; will consider three cases of independent primary research conducted on township tourism in postapartheid South Africa from 1994 to the present; and will close with an evaluation of findings and conclusion. Globalization, Tourism, & Poverty Since tourism is a manifestation of globalization, like globalization it can be used as a tool to help meet the unmet needs of the

worlds poor (Sachs 2007, 359). Let us turn to some key perspectives on how, and if, this process should take place. In terms of globalization, Dollar and Kray argue that we are currently experiencing a global economic convergence, in the sense that the wealth gap between rich and poor countries is decreasing due the rapid growth of developing countries (Dollar and Kraay 2002). To

2002, 25). Tourism is unique in that it is confor development, then there is little logic in sidered an export industry in which the proddiscarding tourism occurring specifically inuct is consumed in the same country in which side slums based purely on ethical grounds it is produced. It is an industry well-suited to (Basu 2012, 66). helping the worlds poor for a number of reasons: it is relatively labour-intensive and emDespite Basus optimistic view of slum tourploys a high percentage of women, it is possiism, other authors have a more negative perble to develop in areas which have few other spective. According to Mowforth and Munt, industries, and tourism products can be built the recent commodification of poverty as a upon natural and cultural assets tourist product, which we see with which the poor often have access the emergence of slum or poverty Poverty is now to (WTO 2002, 32). The UNWTO tourism, means that poverty is something to be actively advocates for pro-poor now something to be experienced experienced and tourism, which is a developmental and enjoyed (Mowforth and Munt enjoyed. approach in which tourism gener1998). Indeed, slum tourism ates a net benefit for the poor takes place in a context of great follow this line of reasoning, slum tourism is (WTO 2002, 65). Pro-poor tourism rose to inequality of wealth and power (Mowforth therefore a positive thing and should not be disprominence internationally in 2002 when it and Munt 2009, 48). The relationship of tourcouraged because it is helping the poor countries was presented at the launch of the UNWTOs ists from developed countries traveling in to catch up to the rich. According to Kray and Sustainable Tourism Eliminating Poverty developing countries has been described as Dollar, any inequalities which emerge are not a (ST-EP) programme at the World Summit on one of hegemony, neocolonialism, and imperiresult of globalization, or slum tourism, but rather Sustainable Development in Johannesburg alism; by foreign tourists spreading their valdue to poor domestic education, taxation, and (WTO 2007). ues in underdeveloped areas and by imposing social policies (Dollar and Kraay 2002, 121). A their wish for authentic travel experiences critique of Dollar and Kraay is that their analysis In response to the UNWTOs position, Goodupon the locals (Mowforth and Munt 2009, focuses purely on economic inequalities, yet does win asserts that while tourism does have the 55). Srisang goes further, saying that tourism not consider persisting social and environmental potential to contribute to poverty alleviation, it in the developing world does not benefit the inequalities which are often the underlying causes remains an industry built upon the foundations majority of people. Instead, it exploits them, of poverty. In addition, these authors do not conof the economic neoliberal paradigm bastardizes their culture, robs people of their sider the vulnerability and protection that people (Goodwin, 2009, 90). This means that to traditional values, and subjugates women and in poverty require in those countries in the South some extent exploitation and inequalities are children. In his words, tourism in the develwhich have opened themselves up to the forces of inherent to this system, which speaks to the oping world epitomizes the present unjust globalization. limits of using tourism, in a pureworld economic order where the few who Thin globalization ly free-market context, as a procontrol wealth and power dictate the terms. In contrast to Dollar and Kraay, poor development approach As such, tourism is little different from colonimeans keeping the Rodrik argues that we are not see(Goodwin 2009, 90). alism (Srisang 1992, 3). In this way, window open yet not ing an economic convergence of Mowforth, Munt, and Srisang all agree that the forgetting the mosquito wealth globally, but rather a diverFinally, the issue of pursuing ability of locals to resist these forces of globalscreen. gence, and that the country of your tourism development within the ization, in terms of the lure of potential ecobirth largely determines your life slums themselves needs to be nomic growth, is limited and that the outopportunities (Rodrik 2011, 136). Therefore, addressed. Slums are commonly described as comes of slum tourism for locals are mostly those born in the townships of South Africa are areas which lack basic essential services, such negative. largely at a disadvantage in relation to the tourists as water and sanitation; exhibit substandard which come to visit. In spite of some downsides housing; unhealthy and/or hazardous living In contrast to Dollar and Kraays market liberto globalization, like Sachs, Rodrik believes that it conditions; and insecure residential status alization approach, Mowforth and Munt assert is possible to harness the positive aspects of glob(Mowforth and Munt 2009, 285). A full dethat while on the surface it may seem like a alization, and he supports thin globalization scription of the demand for slum tourism and good idea to bring tourists into direct contact which he describes with the analogy of keeping the product itself will be discussed in the Arwith slum-dwellers to provide economic benethe window open yet not forgetting the mosquito gument Section. fit for the poor, this type of tourism has the screen Rodrik 2011, 137). potential to be voyeuristic and aestheticize According to Basu, slum tourism has a great urban poverty and security(Mowforth and In terms of using tourism as a tool to achieve povpotential to offer a learning experience to tourMunt 2009, 292). Thus, they agree with the erty alleviation in the developing world, the UNists, to open a valuable window into the lives premise of this paper that slum tourism serves WTO has been one of the most outspoken cheerof the poorest of the poor, and also to funnel to increase rather than challenge inequality leaders of this approach. According to statistics tourist dollars into the slums (Basu 2012, 71). and powerless, thus leading to global diverfrom the UNWTO, tourism is a significant ecoThus, the associated stigma of slum tourism as gence. nomic sector in 11 of the 12 countries that contain being exploitative does not necessarily take 80 percent of the worlds poor (Scheyvens 2002, into account the learning and economic To build on this, Frenzel et al. describe slum 5). It emerged as a global phenomenon in the growth that can occur as a result. As well, if tourism as the nexus of poverty, ethics, and 1960s, with the advent of the revolutions in transtourism in other underdeveloped areas can be power (Frenzel et al. 2012, 8). The focus of portation and communications revolutions (WTO accepted and endorsed as a potential vehicle this paper will be on the power dimension of

thing worthwhile (Guttentag 2009, 540). Just as Enloe notes that the demand for sex tourism has largely stimulated the supply of sex tourism in the developing world, the premise of this paper is essentially the same, yet within the context of slum tourism (Enloe 2000). Finally, in terms of tourist demand, Mowforth and Munt describe the growing trend of the aestheticisation, or enjoyment of poverty. This is the process of desiring the experience of real poverty, ethnic and off -the-beaten track locations, and witnessing civil struggle. In this way, travel is used as a way to express good taste; however, the quest for authenticity is often driven from a romanticized view of the Other (Mowforth and Munt 2009, 74). Intervening Variable: Supply Argument The demand for authentic and exotic tourist experiences stimulates the commodification of poverty and the creation of township tours. The consumption of these tours by tourists from developed countries exacerbates social and economic divergences, and maintains the North/South Divide. Following is a description of each variable in further detail. As mentioned, the supply of slum tourism product is created as a result of increasing demand. The dynamics of how this plays out in the South African context will be further described in the Case Study Section. Also discussed previously, it is now apparent that the rise of slum tourism marks the commodification of poverty (Mowforth and Munt 1998). The fact that a price tag has been put on poverty and can now be experienced for a cost, highlights the disjuncture between free-market, neoliberal capitalism and respect for dignified human development. This calls into question the advocates of small governments and market liberalizations, who seem to overlook vulnerable populations who may require government protection against the potential negative effects of globalization. Dependent Variable: Social, Economic Divergence As hypothesized, the outcome of slum tourism leads to the divergence between tourists and locals in both social and economic ways. Many authors have noted the potential for slum tourism to create a zoo-like atmosphere, in which voyeuristic tourists come to gape at locals and the locals are treated as socially inferior to the tourists (Mowforth and Munt 2009, 288). In addition, the attitude of the tourists towards locals may be patronizing, superior, and intrusive. Vulnerable societies may be penetrated by unwelcome tourists who

feel like they have the right to intrude and take photographs of people living in povertystricken areas (van Egmond 2007, 187). These attitudes serve to maintain a global social hierarchy, in which social superiority and inferiority between tourists and locals persists. The economic dilemma of slum tourism is that it is an industry which relies on the ongoing portrayal of poverty; therefore it is not really about pulling the poor out of poverty. It is not an intrinsically pro-poor development approach. If the poor do manage to develop themselves economically in poverty-stricken areas, then the slum tourists will go elsewhere for a more authentic portrayal of poverty. This would result in the loss of any tourist dollars that the proponents of slum tourism argue will benefit these communities. Also, if a community is benefiting from tourists who are traveling for the specific purpose of witnessing poverty, then there is not as great an incentive of local policy-makers to eliminate poverty. Theoretical Framework In order to operationalize the variables, it is necessary to establish some metrics to measure social and economic divergence between tourists and locals in the South African townships. For this, Scheyvens provides an answer with her Empowerment Framework, which was developed to measure the impact of tourism on locals (see Figure 1: Empowerment Framework). Based on Scheyvens framework, if there is evidence to suggest that greater disempowerment than empowerment is occurring in the context of the township tours, this will indicate that divergence is indeed occurring as a result of slum tourism, and this would support the hypotheses. If there is evidence to suggest that more empowerment is occurring as a result of the tours, this will refute the hypotheses. Figure 2: Doxeys Irridex

slum tourism, and will examine inequalities between local and tourists, in psycho-social and economic terms (see Figure 1: Scheyvens Empowerment Framework).

Independent Variable: Tourist Demand The demand for slum tourism can be traced to the desire of wealthy tourists to experience the Other, and the voracious appetite of tourists to consume new experiences and places (Mowforth and Munt 2009, 285). It has been noted that some tourists are looking to educate themselves about social realities, by engaging in slum tourism, and are searching for the antithesis of capitalism and modernity (Mowforth and Munt 2009, 288). In addition, they also generally exhibit a desire to interact directly with residents, and are strongly driven by a yearning for authenticity (van Egmond 2007, 187). Some people wonder if there are other motivations of slum tourists. Like those who travel for volunteer tourism, it is sometimes difficult to say whether these tourists travel for purely altruistic (or in the case of slum tourists, educational) purposes, or perhaps instead to gain social recognition and status back home for having done some-

hypothesis of social divergence between tourists and locals. If there are more positive feelings of locals towards tourists, this would refute the hypothesis of social divergence between tourists and locals. Ideally, primary research would be gathered via focus groups and in-person interviews. However, due to time and financial restraints, this paper will rely on pre-existing secondary sources to analyze the case studies.

1990s (Frenzel et al. 2012, 4). During apartheid, tours were conducted in non-white areas and organized and promoted by the regime as an official tourist attraction. NGOs and political groups also conducted similar tours at this time.

The strong growth of township tours occurred during the post-apartheid transition, in which South Africa re-integrated into the global economy through policies of trade and travel liberalization, after many years of facing international sanctions and isolation (Nemasetoni South African Context and Rogerson 2007, 209). The post-apartheid During the period of apartheid rule in South tours brought visitors to areas of significance Africa, the regime used divide and rule tacto the anti-apartheid movement, as well as Figure 1: Empowerment Framework improving tourists underSigns of Empowerment Signs of Disempowerment standing of poverty issues of historically oppressed Economic Tourism brings lasting economic gains Tourism merely results in small, spasmodic communities; Scheyvens empowerment to a community. Cash earned is cash gains for a local community. Most describes this as a variation shared between many households in profits go to local elites, outside operators, of justice tourism. Tothe community. There are visible signs govt agencies. Only a few people gain diday, the townships have of improvement from the cash that is rect financial benefits from tourism, while become much more accesearned. Tourism tax revenue is reinothers cannot find a way to share in these sible due to improvements vested back into the community. Low economic benefits because they lack capi- in transportation, and offer evidence of leakage (money leaving tal, experience, skills. High evidence of black South Africans the the community). leakage. chance to share their stoPsycho-social Self-esteem of community members is Local people who interact with tourists are ries of oppression to a empowerment enhanced, due to external recognition left feeling that their culture and way of life captive tourist audience of the uniqueness & value of their culare inferior. Many do not share in the bene- after years of having their ture, natural resources, & traditional fits of tourism & are thus confused, frustrat- voices stifled by a hostile knowledge. Access to employment ed, uninterested, or disillusioned with the government (Nemasetoni leads to an increase in social status for initiative. and Rogerson 2007, 209). youth, the poor. Altogether, 800,000 tourDisharmony & social decay. People begin Community cohesion is improved as to take on outside values & lose respect for ists currently participate in people work together to build a suctraditional culture & elders. Disadvantaged organized township tours, and there are between 40cessful tourism venture. Some funds groups bear the brunt of problems associ50 tour operators in the raised are used for community develated with tourism, fail to share equitably in townships surrounding opment purposes (e.g. build schools, its benefits. Rather than cooperating, reCapetown alone (Frenzel et sanitation, etc). sentment & jealousy emerges among loal. 2012, 4). cals. (Scheyvens 2002, 60) An additional metric to use to identify whether tics to maintain power. This included the social divergence, in particular, is occurring as a promotion of racial and tribal separation and Case Studies result of slum tourism is Doxeys Irritation Index, the regime first set up and managed numerous or Irridex (cited in Beeler 2000, 10). In it, Doxtownships in an attempt to undermine interperTo understand how the township tours play ey describes the changing attitudes and growing sonal trust (Koens 2012, 86). The townships out in practice, let us now turn to three examstress between visitors and hosts over time. The were, and still are, populated predominantly ples of primary research carried out on townfirst level, Euphoria, is the initial stage of develby disadvantaged, black South Africans. Folship tourism in South Africa. opment in which visitors are welcome; followed lowing the end of apartheid in 1994, the govby Apathy, in which there is a more formal/ ernment initially aimed for socialist redistribuKoens looks at Langa and Imizamo Yethu commercial relationship between hosts and visition and income equality in the townships, but townships, both located near Cape Town. He tors; next comes Irritation, in which arrivals reach by 1996 had instead adopted a neoliberal apnotes that despite the emergence of many a saturation point and increasing reservation proach to create wealth and fight poverty by township tourism businesses operating in both emerges towards tourism and tourists; and finally encouraging entrepreneurship and business townships, their lack of market access and Antagonism, in which irritation is openly expartnerships (Koens 2012, 86). small size limits the potential of tourism to pressed and visitors are blamed as the cause of reduce poverty (Koens 2012, 88). Both townall societal problems (Beeler 2000, 10). If it is It is widely accepted that the modern form of ships are dominated by the Xhosa tribe, which found that there are more negative feelings of slum tourism in the global South started in comprises between 85-97% of the population. locals towards tourists, this would support the South Africa as a niche market in the early Despite policy attempts to stimulate entrepre-

Township, they visit a daycare centre with 50 kids who sing a song to the tourists about pride of being African. Afterwards, FreireMadeiros observes that everyone in the group says no when the kids ask for money, though the kids still hold hands with the tourists and want to play. She describes the townships in the Western Cape as having become living museums on a grand scale, with the advent of township tourism. The tour stops at the home of a sangoma, or traditional healer, and the home is filled with people who seem quite used to tourists. Later, the group goes to a shebeen, or local pub, and while most participants talk with each other and the guide Freire -Medeiros notices that the other patrons acknowledge the tourists presence but do not neurship, unemployment remains high at just connect with their conversation. Their disenunder 50%. These high levels of unemployment gaged gaze reminds her of images of colonial are accompanied by a great sense of economic Africa, and she draws a parallel to township insecurity for many residents (Koens 2012, 88). tourism as cultivating an image of the urban Koens further notes that tour operators largely noble savage. Throughout the tour there are compete on price and have very small profit mar- many souvenirs available for sale, though the gins; indeed, large tour operators with buses can tourists do not purchase very many. As the price the tours cheaper so that the smaller operatourists leave the shebeen, they photograph a tors are unable to compete, and thus lose out on dozen sheep heads left lying in the sun, and the supposed economic benefits of township tours. one tourist mentions: this is probably the In addition, high levels of competition stifle inno- most blood and guts thing Ive seen in a long vation. Tour operators often run the risk of maktime! (Freire-Madeiros 2013, 42). Finally, ing their neighbours envious or jealous if they the tour comes to an end as the group enters a were to succeed financially from tourism, and so, shack shared by an elderly woman and her there is a dampening effect on entrepreneurial five grandchildren, who recently lost their creativity. Koens cites distrust among tour opera- mother to AIDS, and the tour guide explains tors, lingering from the era of apartheid, as a mathe ravages of AIDS in the townships. jor obstacle to reaping the full benefits of tourism. Finally, many operators are inexperienced about Rolfes conducted his research on tourism and often lack the entre20 different township tours orgaThe tour was very much preneurial training needed to efnized by 12 operators, all of about having fun (for the fectively market themselves which were organized by black tourists), while gazing at, (Koens 2012, 89). tour guides who claimed to live in the townships themselves. Freire-Medeiros conducts her Most of the tours took place in research as a participant of Global the township of Langa, GugFREIRE-MEDEIROS Exchange in 2007. This company ulethu, and Khayelitsha located specializes in what they call in the region around Cape Town. reality tours, and describe themselves as an All of the tours combined very similar eleinternational human rights organization dedicat- ments such as: historical or cultural sights, ed to promoting environmental, political, social visit to pre-school institutions (usually includjustice and which offers close encounters with ing singing or dancing performances by communities beset by conflict, poverty, and rechildren), visit to residential areas, visit to a pression (Freire-Medeiros 2013, 28). Although sangoma, visit to a shebeen where these tours are marketed as politically oriented umqombothi (traditional beer) is offered to and intended to send an activist message, Freiretourists, and visits to private homes (Rolfes Madeiros observes that the tour was very much 2010, 429). During the tours souvenirs were about having fun (for the tourists), while gazing available for sale, although few tourists bought at, photographing and engaging with other peoany. Tourists were also offered various opporples hardship (Freire-Madeiros 2013, 28). Her tunities to donate during the visits to the social experience begins in Cape Town, with a township institutions, but again, donation rates were resident guide who says that cameras are welcome low. Though the potential to connect with because tourists are already a part of the scenery residents was possible at every stop, such for locals. As the group moves on to Khayelitsha connections were observed almost exclusively
photographing and engaging with other peoples hardships.

during the visits to the shebeens. When asked, the tour operators cited the potential for commercial opportunities as the main reason for offering tours, and they mentioned the growing tourist demand for such tours. Some of the operators also remarked that they wanted to use a portion of their profit to support particular community projects in the townships. Rolfes noted that in almost all cases, children played an important role in the tours. They would often sing and dance for the tourists during the stops to the schools, and while walking on the streets the visitors were often surrounded by children which provided the tourists many opportunities to take photographs of the children. Evaluation In terms of Scheyvens Empowerment Framework and Doxeys Irridex, some conclusions can be drawn from the case studies in relation to economic and social divergences between tourists and locals. In economic terms, the existence of slum tourism was found to have a limited impact on the townships. Koens finds that tourism does not appear to be bringing lasting economic gains to the townships, and only a few people appear to be gaining direct financial benefits from tourism. Koens also notes the persistence of high rates of unemployment despite the existence of tourism. Economic insecurity is present, because small operators are unable to compete with large operators. Both FreireMedeires and Rolfes find that tourists were generally unlikely to buy souvenirs or donate; which again means that the economic benefits of tourism were not being widely spread throughout the communities. In spite of this, Rolfes does observe that there was a relatively wide range of business and institutions visited, which suggests that perhaps some economic benefits of tourism in the townships are being spread more broadly. Rolfes finds that the tour operators confirmed the causal story that tourist demand for township tours stimulated the supply. In addition, he finds that the tour operators are open to sharing some of their profits in community development projects, yet it is unclear if this is simply a desire or if it has already become a reality. None of the researchers find any evidence that tax revenues collected from tourism have been reinvested back into the townships by local governments. Overall, township tourism seems to be mostly exacerbating existing economic inequalities within the townships, and this largely confirms the hypothesis of economic divergence between tourists and

In reference to Doxeys Irridex, the findings suggest that many adults in the townships are largely apathetic to tourists, as can be seen in the limited interactions that they have with tourists and their overall disinterest in interacting with tourists, even in the shebeens. The children however tend to still be euphoric about tourists, and are generally excited to interact with them. Though local sentiment has not yet progressed to irritation or annoyance of tourists, this may be because tourism is still a relatively new phenomenon in the townships. As time progresses, and if the above -mentioned social and economic problems continue, then local sentiment could easily change. locals. Conclusion In social terms, the existence of slum tourism was found to be somewhat problematic in the townships. Koens finds that instead of cooperating, social disharmony would often occur among tour operators and other locals who were competitive, distrustful, envious, and jealous of one another. These are all indicators of social disempowerment. Freire-Medeiros finds that the commodification of poverty was occurring from the travel agencys marketing material. She also finds that the aestheticisation of poverty was occurring, as she observes with the tourists commenting on and photographing the blood and guts of dead goats. She notes the tourists gazing at poverty as the zoo phenomenon, and also by the fact that the townships are described as living museums. She does notice that the children seem to exhibit cultural pride when they are singing songs about being African to the tourists. Taking the tourists to the house of an elderly woman whose daughter recently died of AIDS may be interpreted as overly intrusive, insensitive, and lacking in respect for this womans dignity. Both Freire-Medeiros and Rolfes note that in spite of tourists interacting with and taking pictures of the children, when asked for money by the children, most tourists said no. This highlights both the economic and social gap between the tourists and children, and also reinforces the hierarchy of superiority/inferiority in terms of the wealth and power of the tourists compared to the vulnerability of the children. It can also be described as an exploitative relationship, in which the tourists are taking something but not providing anything in return. Finally, Rolfes notes the relatively low levels of interaction between tourists and locals, except in the shebeens or with the children. All of these factors indicate that overall, township tourism is not contributing to a net positive social empowerment of local people, but instead resulting in a growing divergence between the social wellbeing of tourists versus locals. Having now considered the literature and several case studies of tourism in the townships of South Africa, it has now become apparent that slum tourism is problematic in the developing world. The evidence from the case studies suggests that there is indeed a growing social and economic divergence occurring between tourists and locals in the townships, and this serves to exacerbate the existing inequalities of the global North/South divide. It is evident that some of the worlds most vulnerable people are not harnessing the potential of globalization, and tourism, to help them meet their unmet needs. The economic and travel liberalizations which were enacted in South Africa following the end of apartheid have not necessarily led to a net benefit for the people living in the townships. The invisible hand of the market, when left unchecked, can result in the commodification of tourism, and the exploitation and disempowerment of the worlds poor. Government interventions, therefore, may be appropriate to protect these people by directing development away from industries such as slum tourism and towards other industries which are more socially and economically beneficial. Much existing literature on slum tourism focuses on the perspective of the tourists and tour operators; however there is little primary research on the perspectives, impacts, and agency of locals in general who are affected by slum tourism. In addition, further research should be carried out to uncover the ways that policymakers can limit the negative effects of slum tourism, and also ways in which communities can reorient themselves away from slum tourism towards something more socially and economically desirable.

References Basu, Kanika. 2012. Slum Tourism: For the Poor, By the Poor. In Slum Tourism: Poverty, Power and Ethics, edited by Frenzel Fabian, Ko Koens, and Malte Steinbring, 6682. New York: Routledge. Beeler, Bjrn. 2000. Opportunities and Threats to Local Sustainable Development: Introducing Ecotourism to Venado Island, Costa Rica. PhD diss., Lund University. Dollar, David and Aart Kraay. 2002. Spreading the Wealth. Foreign Affairs 81(1):12033. Enloe, Cynthia. 2000. On the Beach: Sex and Tourism. In Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics, edited by Cynthia Enloe, 1941. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Freire-Medeiros, Bianca. 2013. Touring Poverty. London: Routledge. Frenzel, Fabian, Ko Koens, and Malte Steinbrink. 2012. Slum Tourism: Poverty, Power, and Ethics. New York: Routledge. Goodwin, Harold. 2009. Reflections on 10 Years of Pro-Poor Tourism. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure, and Events 1(1):9094. Guttentag, Daniel. 2009. The Possible Negative Impacts of Volunteer Tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research 11:537551. Koens, Ko. 2012. Competition, Cooperation and Collaboration: Business Relations and Power in Township Tourism. In Slum Tourism: Poverty, Power and Ethics, edited by Frenzel Fabian, Ko Koens, and Malte Steinbrink, 83100. New York: Routledge. Mowforth, Martin and Ian Munt. 1998. Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World. 2nd edition. London: Routledge. Mowforth, Martin and Ian Munt. 2009. Tourism and Sustainability: Development, Globalization, and the New Tourism in the Third World. 3rd edition. London: Routledge. Nemasetoni, Irene and Christian Rogerson. 2007. Township Tourism in Africa: Emerging Tour Operators in Gauteng, South Africa. In Urban Tourism in the Developing World: The South African Experience, edited by Christian Rogerson and Gustav Visser, 205220. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Rolfes, Manfred. 2010. Poverty tourism: theoretical reflections and empirical findings regarding an extraordinary form of tourism. GeoJournal 75:421442. Sachs, Jeffrey. 2007. The Anti-globalization Movement. In The Globalization and Development Reader, edited by J. Timmins Roberts and Amy Hite, 356-359. Blackwell Pub. Scheyvens, Regina. 2002. Tourism for Development: Empowering Communities. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd. Srisang, Koson. 1992. Third World Tourism: the New Colonialism. In Focus 4:23. van Egmond, Ton. 2007. Understanding Western Tourists in Developing Countries. London: CABI. World Tourism Organization. 2002. Tourism and Poverty Alleviation, Madrid. World Tourism Organization. 2007. UNWTO ST-EP Programme, Madrid.