5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

1

Drawing Lines in the Sand

Being discriminated against is an awful feeling. Its that moment when you know
someones taking advantage of you because they can, because youre different. When it happens
on vacation, your options usually narrow down to arguing with them, walking away and giving
up on whatever it is you were trying to do, or going along with it and paying whatever absurd
price theyre asking. None of that is pleasant.

Discrimination happens all over the world, and with such frequency that sometimes we
rarely even notice it. Disneyland provides discounted tickets for local Southern Californian
residents (Bloom, 2016) and there are senior and student discounts for everything from food to
clothes to books to travel fees to entrance to museums. Many airline tickets become cheaper or
more expensive (depending on the pricing model of the airline) the closer it gets to the flight date
and tourist attractions sometimes give locals free entrance, or provide tickets that are far cheaper
for the citizens than for foreigners.

Similarly, memberships can provide cheaper or even free entrance into exclusive clubs
for the special people whove signed up or whose parents and family are members. Disabled
people get special parking or even discounts at certain places, such as when visiting the Eiffel
Tower ("Eiffel Tower ticket rates and access conditions", n.d.). Theres also all the special
treatment children get. Free entry for Children multiple signs proclaim, in Russias Hermitage
museum to Frances Louvre to Indias Taj Mahal to Thailands Grand Palace.

5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

2

Those are all examples of discrimination. One group of people being charged different
prices for the same product or service based on their characteristics is, after all, the very
definition of price discrimination, as defined in economics. Its even there in the name.

The question then becomes: is this discrimination actually unfair, or is it just good
business? Or is it both, or neither? Are these companies and museums and clubs and tourist
attractions providing a discount to those who need it, to the students and children and seniors
who dont work and therefore have less money, to the people who should get a discount because
they are citizens that pay taxes and belong to the country, or is it, as the name suggests,
discrimination against working people who could theoretically afford higher prices, and against
foreigners just because theyre different and seen as able to pay more? When do differences
actually matter; where do we draw the line? Is it even good business at all in tourism, where it
could potentially alienate the very people that make up the main bulk of all revenue gained?

Those are big questions, and I cant sufficiently answer them for all cases. I will,
however, look at those questions in the context of tourism, specifically, at the issue of price
discrimination against foreigners for entry to local attractions. In the specific context of entrance
prices to such places, it seems only logical that giving locals free or cheaper entry than foreigners
-- or, looking at it from the opposite point of view, that charging foreigners more than locals -- is
actually both fair and good business practice.

To do so, Id like to look at three main reasons why the practice of dual pricing is
acceptable. The first reason is that citizens do actually pay for such sites, via taxes and actual

5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

3

labor (Dumcke & Gnedovsky, 2013), secondly that such places are national assets, so theyre
specifically for the people of the country (Perera & Chandra, 2014, Yin, 2006), and thirdly, that
charging foreigners higher prices is both fair business practice (according to the belief in free
markets and capitalism, which is the business model used in most of the world) and furthermore,
its done for the upkeep and maintenance of these sites and so is also done with good reason. In
discussing these reasons, Ill therefore also look at and refute the reasons usually provided for
why dual pricing is not acceptable, which are that it is racial discrimination, that its price
gouging, and that its bad business because it might drive away foreign customers.

As mentioned, the first reason dual pricing is perfectly reasonable is that citizens do, in
fact, pay taxes and contribute to that countrys society (Alm, McClelland & Schulze, 1992).
Locals have actually already paid, just not in ways that are as instantly obvious as on the entry
fee. Money from taxes pays for the upkeep of such buildings (Glaser & Hildreth, 1999), and the
local people themselves work there to look after and take care of them. A major reason they do
so is because they love their culture and history and want to keep it alive and pass it on through
further generations (Bedate, Herrero & Sanz, 2004). As such, citizens do contribute in ways other
than the pure revenue they provide -- though they do provide revenue as well via taxes -- by
passing on knowledge and history and helping care for those places and encouraging others to do
so (Kurin, 2004) .

The second reason is that most of such buildings and places are mainly maintained for
their citizens benefit; to foster a sense of nationalism and help them remember and pass the
culture and history on through successive generations (Dumcke & Gnedovsky, 2013). Philippine

5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

4

museums show Filipino history, Thai temples contain precious Thai statues and relics, and
French art is shown in France. This is not to say thats all thats shown in such countries, or that,
for example, no French art is shown anywhere but France, but generally if some art or culture
can be said to belong to a country, then its assumed that country has some right to it, to be kept
and shown to their people.

For example, in 2014, Christies (a major art auction house) voluntarily bought back a
Cambodian statue they had sold, in order to return it to Cambodia, and they also paid the fees
necessary to return it to its homeland (Blumenthal, 2014). In 2009 Britains Heathrow Museum
spent over a year organizing their successful return of over 1500 artifacts to Afghanistan (Peters,
2009) and both the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the
Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (which 121 nations have
ratified) and the UNs UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural
Objects came about specifically to deal with the issues involved in getting historical and
cultural artifacts returned so they can be displayed in their proper countries (Roehrenbeck, 2010).

Therefore dual pricing is good for the government and local people, to help them hold on
to their history and culture (Clark, 2001), and good for the tourists, as they get to come visit and
see these places that otherwise might not exist or which they might not even be allowed the
option to see and visit (Tuan & Navrud, 2008). This is where revenue from tourists entrance fees
come in, to help with the upkeep of sites. However, profit is not the main purpose of such places,
and in fact, frequently the revenue gained from tourists simply isnt enough to maintain such
sites ("Asia's Heritage in Peril", 2012). For example, in India in 1995-1996, Keoladeo National

5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

5

Park only recouped 24% of expenses spent on protection and management (Walpole, et al., 2001)
and there are many national sites that are not recovering anywhere near as much as they spend.
Research of the financial value of tourism in five Australian World Heritage Areas (Great Barrier
Reef, Wet Tropics, Uluru National Park, Kakadu National Park, and Tasmanian Wilderness),
found that for the year the revenue raised by government through user fees represented only
8.5% of the government expenditures (Eagles, 2002, pg. 17).

In cases where revenue from tourists is not enough, the government then pays out of its
own pocket. This is because the government sees the need to maintain the sites not for the tourist
draw, but for its own peoples cultural benefit and history (Smith, 2004). As such, the complaint
the charging high prices for foreigners is bad business doesnt quite hold, because the main
point is not business and gaining money, but to pass on culture, history, traditions, and national
assets to the countrys people.

Thirdly, even when looking at this issue purely from a business perspective, price
discrimination is actually not only perfectly legal and done all over the world in all sorts of
different situations, but in many cases it is actually considered a good thing. Sometimes its done
almost purely for societal and moral reasons, such as with discounts for the disabled, or with
children discounts, where its assumed that children dont have much money (or if, as is more
likely, its the parents that are paying, then that the parents have less money because they have
children). Nevertheless, most people and businesses believe that the fact that they dont
have/cant earn much money shouldnt prohibit them from -- or their parents from being able to
provide them with -- experiences, things, or places that others with more money can access.

5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

6

Sometimes discrimination pricing is done for both moral and business reasons, such as
with senior or student discounts. These discounts are usually provided both because its assumed
such people have less money (either because theyre not working yet, or have retired) but should
still be able to access certain goods and experiences, and also because businesses (e.g. cinemas,
privately-owned museums, stores, restaurants, etc.) want to entice them to spend what money
they have, and so decide that its better to give them discounted prices rather than potentially not
have their patronage at all.

Of course, sometimes discrimination pricing is done purely for business and monetary
reasons, like when airlines give discounted prices to fill up their seats, or when loyalty cards
provide certain people with discounts or free products (usually after spending enough to attain a
certain number of points). Very few people claim its unfair that someone with Starbucks Gold
card membership gets a free Starbucks drink, even if there are others who cant afford to get a
Gold member card, and nobody would seriously consider the claim that its unfair that they have
to pay full price for their drink while members gets discounts or free drinks.

The common counter to this is that foreigners cant possibly become citizens of the
country and so its unfair. However, some people simply cannot afford to become members of,
say, Starbucks, and yet its still perfectly fine for Starbucks to provide free drinks to those that
can. It is understood that members are getting a discount, not that others are being overcharged,
even though a vast majority of visitors to Starbucks, and therefore the main source of revenue for
Starbucks, may not be Gold card members. Similarly, locals get discounts or free entrance

5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

7

because they are members of that country, even though they may not be where most of the
revenue comes from.

Starbuck drinks are not a necessity; theyre an indulgence, and so is the ability to visit
attractions in foreign countries. Thats a luxury, not a right, and under the capitalist and free
market model, businesses -- or in the case of a countrys attractions, possibly a government,
which as far as foreigners who have no claims to that government are concerned, is a business -are perfectly within their right to charge what they consider an acceptable price for the good or
service theyre offering.

So why is dual pricing in tourism any different, even if it is done for monetary as well as
moral purposes? It isnt. From a moral standpoint, its done to provide a discount to citizens who
may otherwise not be able to afford it, but who theyd like to attract or interest, similarly to how
we do with children and seniors and students. From a business standpoint, its provided to people
who have already paid through taxes and labor, and to whom the attractions truly belong to, as
part of their cultural heritage. Furthermore, charging foreigners different prices is a good
business idea in terms of gaining enough revenue to preserve such locations and also its just
normal business, to require people to pay if they have no claim on an item or service and yet
wish to gain it.

There are three main counterarguments usually posited at this point. One is that a
reasonable price is fine, but that such places are charging far higher prices to the point where
its price gouging, under the belief that foreigners can afford.

5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

8

The problem here is how to decide whats reasonable. Thats highly subjective,
depending on where one comes from, the job they have, and so on. What should be compared to
what? The 500B (15 USD) entry fee to Thailands Grand Palace (which provides access not only
to the Grand Palace, but , for example, is over 6 times less than that of Disneylands cheapest
entrance fee (95 USD). By that standard, its perfectly reasonable and even a steal. However if
compared to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which allows for free entrance, it could be
considered (depending on how one compares free entry to priced entry) 15 times more and
completely unreasonable.

In the end, the best definition of a reasonable price might just be one that most people are
willing to pay; in which case, the large numbers of tourists at popular sites seem to suggest dual
pricing is generally acceptable and reasonable. Studies also back up tourists overall willingness
to pay, with the caveat that they expect the money from their entrance fees to go towards
maintaining and managing the sites they visit. As long as that happens though, most do seem to
feel the dual pricing system is fair (Barnes et al., 1997; Dodds, 2013; Hu, 2002; Mmopelwa et
al., 2007; Reynisdottir et al., 2008; Tisdale & Wilson, 2003; Togridou et al., 2006).

The second counterargument is that this is bad business since tourists make up most or all
of the revenue these places gain. However, the major point and purpose of such places is not
business, but to provide cultural heritage to their citizens; therefore dual pricing is perfectly
reasonable in that it allows for increased revenue while keeping the important prices (those for
its citizens) low enough to still attract the people such places are truly for. Furthermore, as the

5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

9

studies mentioned above state (Barnes et al., 1997; Dodds, 2013; Hu, 2002; Mmopelwa et al.,
2007; Reynisdottir et al., 2008; Tisdale & Wilson, 2003; Togridou et al., 2006), it is not actually
likely to drive away foreigner customers, as many are actually alright with paying higher
entrance fees.

The third counterargument -- usually posited in rebuttal to the idea that citizens pay
through labor and taxes and therefore contribute that way -- is usually along the lines of, But
what about foreign workers or residents who pay taxes, but still have to pay the foreigner price?
That suggests its racial discrimination and not actually about taxes.

Firstly, it should be noted that many buildings, especially if theyre government

maintained, will usually allow foreign residents or workers to go in for free or for the lower
citizen price if they show their work permit or other official documents showing they pay taxes.
Even ignoring that, while this counterargument might hold some weight if taxes were the only
reason behind the higher prices for foreigners/discounts for citizens, as mentioned before the
entire point of such places is that they are for the citizens of that country, that these buildings are
national assets for that countrys people. Therefore, it makes sense that the citizens specifically
should definitely get the discount, as passing on national history and culture to successive
generations of that countrys people is the main purpose of heritage sites and cultural attractions.
Admittedly, there are some unscrupulous people who manage to sneak in without paying by
pretending they are of the appropriate nationality, but that is a moral problem on their part. Thats
not on the gatekeepers, who naturally cant possibly catch everyone, especially if they are

5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

10

operating under the assumption that most people are fundamentally good and wouldnt lie to
save a bit of money that they likely knew theyd be expected to pay.

It is understandable, however, why some people, when looking at this issue from a
personal perspective, nevertheless still feel theyre being strongly discriminated at. There is after
all, a fundamental difference in how such places treat them. local Attraction or heritage sites
mainly treat foreigners as customers, looking at them from business perspective, where theyre
charging for a good or service. However, the same places look at and treat locals differently. This
is not because theyre trying to over-charge or price-gouge foreigners, but because these places
are not looking at citizens as potential customers with no claim, but in a way as part of them, as
the reason they exist.

An analogy might be made to family, especially since we sometimes talk about our
home country, homeland, mother country or place where we are from. If a mother was,
say a street vendor, and therefore charged customers to buy her food, but then her children came
up and she gave them food for free, this would be considered only natural. Theyre her children.
They have a claim on her, its her job to take care of and feed them. If she didnt do so, shed be
viewed as a bad mother. Customers do not feel that the fact that they have to pay for food while
the children get it for free is unfair, because they understand the difference; they understand that
they are customers but that the children are hers.

Similarly, governments and countries charge foreigners and tourists but provide free or
discounted prices to citizens, because the citizens are theirs. Theyre natives of the country, they

5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

11

belong to the country, and so they have a claim on it and a right to their culture and heritage.
Like family, each foreigner or tourist does have a country that they belong to, where they will
then sometimes get free or discounted prices, while other tourists to their country may have to
pay more. If they dont get free or discounted entry in their own countries, then they can of
course feel free to take it up with their government, the same way kids sometimes complain to
their parents that something is unfair because other children get to have it but they dont.

This also is important because in terms of fairness, it does usually even out. Foreigners
might have to pay more than locals when they visit another country, but others may have to pay
more when they visit their country, depending on each countrys governmental, environmental,
taxation, and cultural policies. If they dont, or citizens dont get discounted prices, thats
because the country, like a family, may have a differing viewpoint, but its up to each individual
country to manage that. We dont tell parents that they must all handle their kids the exact same
way, and theres no real reason why would we tell countries and governments to do so.

In short, cultural heritage sites are usually from the people, for the people. As such, since
citizens have both already paid and contributed to the place in some way, and as its also part of
their cultural heritage and these places are in fact maintained for them and they have a right to
them, preventing or raising obstacles to their ability to visit their own cultural sites therefore goes
directly counter to the purpose of having such sites in the first place. While the side benefit of
revenue gained from tourists is naturally an important consideration, its an important
consideration because it is usually the main source of revenue needed for the upkeep of the
buildings, but it is not the primary reason such buildings are maintained. Therefore, it makes

5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

12

sense to have dual pricing, in that it allows for the locals to visit their sites, provides revenue for
the upkeep of said sites, and also keeps such places running for tourists to visit and enjoy.

When looking at the topic of dual pricing from a personal viewpoint, its only naturally
and instinctive to have a gut reaction of this is wrong, theyre charging me based on my skin
color and nationality. Nobody likes to be discriminated against, especially not on holiday when
youre supposed to be having fun, and our negative reaction to it is usually swift and strong.
However, after careful consideration of all the factors, it seems much more reasonable to view
this not as discrimination based on who you are, but as a discount provided to the citizens who
have paid in other ways, who might not otherwise be able to enter, who have an actual right to
entry, and who overall, as members of the country, have a very different claim then tourists do.

In which case, it might be best just to take a deep breath, think of all the reasons this isnt
actually a slight against you and is just a discount to others, consider that in some ways youre
fortunate just to have been able to travel to be here, maybe think of the surprise theyll get if they
ever manage to visit your home country, smile, and hand over the cash.

References

5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

13

Alm, J., McClelland, G., & Schulze, W. (1992). Why do people pay taxes?. Journal Of Public
Economics, 48(1), 21-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(92)90040-m
Asia's Heritage in Peril. (2012). Global Heritage Fund. Retrieved 25 March 2016, from
http://www.globalheritagefund.org/images/uploads/docs/GHFAsiaHeritageinPeril050112_lo
wres.pdf
Barnes, J., Schier, C., & van Rooy, G. (1997). Tourists' willingness to pay for wildlife viewing
and wildlife conservation in Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia: Ministry of Environment and
Tourism. Retrieved from http://www.the-eis.com/data/RDPs/RDP15.pdf
Bedate, A., Herrero, L., & Sanz, J. (2004). Economic valuation of the cultural heritage:
application to four case studies in Spain. Journal Of Cultural Heritage, 5(1), 101-111.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2003.04.002
Bloom, T. (2016). Disneyland Announces Discounted Ticket Options for SoCal Residents. KTLA.
Retrieved 24 March 2016, from http://ktla.com/2016/01/06/disneyland-announcesdiscounted-ticket-options-for-socal-residents/
Blumenthal, T. (2014). Christies to Return Cambodian Statue. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 22 March
2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/arts/design/christies-to-return-cambodianstatue.html
Clark, K. (2001). Preserving What Matters: Value-Led Planning for Cultural Heritage
Sites.Conservation Perspectives, The GCI Newsletter, (16), 5-12. Retrieved from
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/newsletters/16_3/feature.html
Dodds, R. (2013). Will tourists pay for a healthy environment? Assessing visitors' perceptions
and willingness to pay for conservation and preservation in the island of Koh Phi Phi,
Thailand. IJTA,3(1), 28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijta.2013.054407
Dumcke, C., & Gnedovsky, M. (2013). The Social and Economic Value of Cultural Heritage:
literature review. European Expert Network On Culture. Retrieved from
http://www.eenc.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/CD%C3%BCmcke-MGnedovskyCultural-Heritage-Literature-Review-July-2013.pdf
Eagles, P. (2002). Trends in Park Tourism: Economics, Finance and Management. Journal Of
Sustainable Tourism, 10(2), 132-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580208667158

5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

14

Eiffel Tower ticket rates and access conditions. Toureiffel.paris. Retrieved 24 March 2016, from
http://www.toureiffel.paris/en/preparing-your-visit/rates-and-visiting-conditions.html
Glaser, M., & Hildreth, W. (1999). Service Delivery Satisfaction and Willingness to Pay Taxes:
Citizen Recognition of Local Government Performance. Public Productivity & Management
Review,23(1), 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3380792
Hu, J. (2002). TOURIST SATISFACTION WITH CULTURAL / HERITAGE SITES: The Virginia
Historic Triangle (Master). Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University. Retrieved from http://www.thetalkingwalls.co.uk/PDF/tourist_satisfaction.pdf
Kurin, R. (2004). Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage in the 2003 UNESCO Convention: a
critical appraisal. Museum International, 56(1-2), 66-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.13500775.2004.00459.x
Mmopelwa, G., Kgathi, D., & Molefhe, L. (2007). Tourists perceptions and their willingness to
pay for park fees: A case study of self-drive tourists and clients for mobile tour operators in
Moremi Game Reserve, Botswana. Tourism Management, 28(4), 1044-1056.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.08.014
Perera, K., & Chandra, D. (2014). Documenting the Intangible Cultural Heritage for Sustainable
Economic Growth in Developing Countries. CIDOC. Retrieved 25 March 2016, from
http://network.icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/minisites/cidoc/ConferencePapers/2014
/H-2_Perera_Chandra_paper.pdf
Peters, G. (2009). More Than 1,500 Stolen Afghan Artifacts Return to
Kabul.News.nationalgeographic.com. Retrieved 22 March 2016, from
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090306-afghanistan-artifacts-returnedmissions.html
Price Discrimination Definition. (2007). Investopedia. Retrieved 24 March 2016, from
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price_discrimination.asp
Reynisdottir, M., Song, H., & Agrusa, J. (2008). Willingness to pay entrance fees to natural
attractions: An Icelandic case study. Tourism Management, 29(6), 1076-1083.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.02.016
Roehrenbeck, C. (2010). Repatriation of Cultural PropertyWho Owns the Past? An Introduction
to Approaches and to Selected Statutory Instruments. International Journal Of Legal
Information,38(2). Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/ijli/vol38/iss2/11

5880486

Drawing Lines in the Sand

15

Smith, L. (2004). Archaeological theory and the politics of cultural heritage. London:
Routledge.
Tisdale, C., & Wilson, C. (2003). Attitudes to entry fees to national parks: Results and policy
implications from a Queensland case study (1st ed.). Brisbane: University of Queensland.
Retrieved from http://www.uq.edu.au/rsmg/docs/ClemWPapers/EEE/WP79.pdf
Togridou, A., Hovardas, T., & Pantis, J. (2006). Determinants of visitors' willingness to pay for
the National Marine Park of Zakynthos, Greece. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 308-319.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.12.006
Tuan, T., & Navrud, S. (2008). Capturing the benefits of preserving cultural heritage. Journal Of
Cultural Heritage, 9(3), 326-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2008.05.001
Walpole, M., Goodwin, H., & Ward, K. (2001). Pricing Policy for Tourism in Protected Areas:
Lessons from Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Conservation Biology, 15(1), 218-227.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.99231.x
Yin, T. (2006). Museum and the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (1st ed.). Beijing:
The Ethic Arts. Retrieved from http://museumstudies.si.edu/safeguarding_intangible.pdf