This article was downloaded by: [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek]On: 09 October 2014, At: 19:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Current Issues in TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20

Knowledge Creation, Retention,Exchange, Devolution, Interpretationand Treatment (K-CREDIT) as anEconomic Growth Driver in Pro-PoorTourismSanjay Nadkarni aa Macao University of Science and Technology , Macao SARPublished online: 19 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Sanjay Nadkarni (2008) Knowledge Creation, Retention, Exchange,Devolution, Interpretation and Treatment (K-CREDIT) as an Economic Growth Driver in Pro-PoorTourism, Current Issues in Tourism, 11:5, 456-472, DOI: 10.1080/13683500802316048

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500802316048

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Knowledge Creation, Retention,Exchange, Devolution, Interpretation andTreatment (K-CREDIT) as an EconomicGrowth Driver in Pro-Poor Tourism

Sanjay NadkarniMacao University of Science and Technology, Macao SAR

On the basis of the premise that information asymmetry perpetuates a vicious cycle ofeconomic deprivation and poverty, this article argues that technology-facilitatedknowledge flow mechanism subsumed into pro-poor tourism value chains canserve as eco-friendly and economical instruments in poverty alleviation efforts. Inevolving a framework for such a mechanism, the semantic appropriateness of knowl-edge management (KM) as a concept is scrutinised and a more robust term issuggested. Capacity-building and last mile connectivity are identified as criticalissues for knowledge-driven pro-poor tourism interventions. These are discussedfrom the perspective of contemporary paradigms in development thinking and aframework for dynamic and interactive indigenous knowledge systems is proposed.Stakeholders’ responsibilities as benign intermediaries in the knowledge-drivenpro-poor tourism value chain are highlighted and a case is made for basing such inter-ventions on economically sustainable models.

doi: 10.1080/13683500802316048

Keywords: pro-poor tourism, knowledge, infostructure

BackdropTourism, which is considered to be the world’s largest industry providing

one out of every ten jobs globally (Jamieson, 2006), is being incorporated byan increasing number of developing and least-developed countries into theirnational economic agenda as a tool for poverty alleviation (Cattarinich, 2001;Ghimire, 1997; Sharpley, 2002). Roe and Urquhart Khanya (2001) have high-lighted the tourism sector’s potential contribution in achieving theMillennium Development Goals that seek to reduce global poverty levels atleast by half over a twenty-five-year period, with 1990 as the baseline year(United Nations, 2000). The World Bank (2000) characterises poverty not onlyin terms of income levels and human development but also on the basis of vul-nerability and lack of voice and representation. Leveraging knowledge assetscontributes in varying degrees to the creation of opportunity and empower-ment, and provision of security which the World Bank (2000) recognises asthe guiding principles of development practices. The Human DevelopmentReport (2003) estimates that approximately 70% of the world’s poor live inrural areas and depend on agro-economic activities for their livelihood.

1368-3500/08/05 456-17 $20.00/0 # 2008 Taylor & FrancisCURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM Vol. 11, No. 5, 2008

456

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

According to Rogerson (1999), small-scale non-agricultural activities can consti-tute an important source of revenue generation and employment for the ruralpoor and thereby create new venues for economic growth in the locality.Tourism certainly qualifies as one such activity in economically disadvantagedgeographies that have ‘tourismisable’ assets.

Tourism that generates net benefits for the poor is referred to as pro-poortourism, or PPT (Bennett et al., 1999). Other equivalent terms or expressionscommonly used are ‘tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation, poverty reductionor poverty elimination’ (Chok et al., 2007: 145) and anti-poverty tourism (Zhao &Brent Ritchie, 2007). The UNWTO’s1 Sustainable Tourism-Eliminating Poverty(STEP) also deserves mention. Jamieson (2003) takes the view that almost anytourism asset can meet pro-poor tourism objectives. Lack of financial resourcesnotwithstanding, the poor can leverage their natural and cultural capital uponwhich much of tourism depends to their economic advantage (Ashley et al.,2001). Given the seasonal nature of tourism, it is well suited to complement(and not necessarily substitute) existing agro-economic activities by addingto the conventional revenue streams of the rural poor. Sharpley (2002), whilstacknowledging the positive impact of tourism on economic growth, has ques-tioned the extent to which this economic contribution from tourism feeds theoverall developmental process, on the premise that development per se ismuch more than mere economic growth. Besides, as Chok et al., (2007) havepointed out, despite the lack of empirical evidence to suggest that tourismdevelopment leads to significant benefits for the economically disadvantaged,struggling economies continue to prioritise tourism as a key development tool.Therefore, recourse needs to be taken to the theoretical underpinnings forthe rationalisation and elucidation of such concerns and premises. In thiscontext, from a conceptual standpoint, Telfer (2002) has explained the possibleimpact, scale and control of development a pro-poor tourism intervention canhave from the perspective of different constructs in development theory. Asimilar theoretical overview on the relationship between tourism and povertyis offered by Scheyvens (2007). It is worth noting that Bond and Ladman(1972) have emphasised that theories pertaining to the role of a specific industryor sector in development are not common in academic literature but haveargued that tourism deserves such attention.

In attempting to understand the role of tourism in poverty alleviation, it isessential to focus on the vectors that bring about economic disparities.Information asymmetry is a key driver that perpetuates a vicious cycle ofpoor productivity levels, inefficient deployment and inadequacy of capital, out-dated know-how, and above all, lack of access to training opportunities(Rogerson, 2000). David and Foray (2002) note that in the contemporary globa-lised context, economic progress (or lack thereof) has far less to do with abun-dance of natural resources and increasingly more to do with the capacity toenhance the quality of human capital leading to the creation of new knowledgeand ideas that can be infused into manufacturing and services. This view is cor-roborated by Civi’s (2000: 172) inference that

. . . the balance between knowledge and resources has shifted so fartoward the former that knowledge has become perhaps the most

K-CREDIT as an Economic Growth Driver in Pro-Poor Tourism 457

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

important factor determining the standard of living – more than land,than tools, than labor . . . If developing countries do not pay attention toknowledge as developed countries do, this income end knowledge gapbetween rich and poor countries will increase.

Thus, knowledge deficit and economic penury go hand in hand. Hence, fortourism to make any meaningful impact on the economically disadvantagedgeographies, it is essential that this information asymmetry be addressed byproviding the necessary wherewithal, tangible and intangible, that would era-dicate the opportunity deficit and nurture an environment at the grassroots (i.e.the proverbial ‘last mile’ of the tourism value chain) that would enable thetarget beneficiaries to leverage their ‘tourismisable’ assets in a sustainablemanner to their economic advantage whilst simultaneously protecting thesocio-cultural and environmental fabric of the destination. The tangible com-ponent comprises the infrastructure for access to and dissemination of infor-mation (i.e. information and communication technologies or ICT). Theintangible part involves human resource capacity-building that would allowfor exploitation, analysis and interpretation of the information flows throughinformation technology infrastructure or ‘infostructure’ (Buhalis, 2003),leading to knowledge development. The challenge is to create such an enablingenvironment at the grassroots, with disruptive interventions that are adaptable,scalable and yet economically viable.

Semantics of Knowledge ManagementPrior to developing this line of thought any further, it would be appropriate

to put the core concepts of knowledge and knowledge management into properperspective. In common parlance, knowledge and information often tend to getused interchangeably as synonyms. Whilst attempting to distinguish betweeninformation and knowledge, Wilson (2002) argues that a knowing mindwould assimilate, understand, comprehend and incorporate information intoits own knowledge structures, which are biographically determined (Schutz,1967) and therefore vary from one individual to another. This line of reasoningis consistent with Polanyi’s (1967) notion of tacit knowledge – ‘we know morethan we can say’, and implies that the knowledge built by the recipient from thein-bound information would not be identical to the transmitter’s knowledgebase from which the out-bound messages are dispatched. The application ofthis concept of tacit knowledge in the contemporary economic context hasbeen discussed by Cownan et al. (2000). Against this backdrop, the issue ofwhether knowledge can be ‘managed’ in the conventional sense requiresfurther examination. Alvesson and Karreman (2001) argue that knowledgebeing intrinsically related to meaning, comprehension and process, is adynamic and evolving phenomenon and hence difficult to manage. Citingwork in this domain by Buckingham Shum (1998) and Swan et al. (1999),Hildreth and Kimble (2002) point out that the management of knowledgeposes significant challenges as it is a people process and not merely anobject. These views are in agreement with Drucker’s (1969) idea of a knowledgesociety and economy in one of the pioneering works on the subject wherein hechallenges the notion that knowledge can be managed at all. In fact, Wilson

458 Current Issues in Tourism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

(2002) develops the argument further by emphasising that while data and infor-mation can be managed, knowledge cannot, except at a very individual leveland that too imperfectly, and goes on to label knowledge management as anUtopian ideal and a fad.

Thus, the conceptual differentiation between knowledge and information not-withstanding, the semantic ambiguity that has taken root in contemporary man-agement lexicon makes the interchangeable use of these two words unavoidableto some extent. Wilson’s (2000) review of academic literature and websites ofmanagement consultancy firms and business schools validates this observation.Thus, it is evident that the term KM or knowledge management may not betenable in a literal sense, given a high degree of that which Hildreth andKimble (2002) have termed as terminological ambiguity, on account of which amyriad of adjectives are often necessary to explain exactly in what sense orcontext it is being applied. This ambiguity does not ‘gel’ with the concept ofmanagement which is associated with structured, object-oriented paradigms.Thus, in a jargon-obsessed world of management lexicology, instead ofrunning the risk of perpetuating ambiguity through the use of the term ‘knowl-edge management’, a more appropriate term which is flexible and robust is inorder – K-CREDIT, which stands for knowledge creation, retention, exchange,devolution, interpretation and treatment would be a possible candidate. Theabsence of the term ‘management’ in this acronym allows K-CREDIT to retaina less-rigid definition. In the scope of its interpretation, it is adequately robustto subsume more conventional concepts such as data and information manage-ment, and in a functional sense, includes technology enabled activities such ase-business, e-education and e-governance. In order to avoid possible semanticpitfalls and in the interest of clarity, it is this acronym that will be used in thisarticle, instead of the more widely used term KM.

K-CREDIT in Pro-Poor TourismThe process of K-CREDIT in any given sector involves two parallel tracks: the

information and communication technology (ICT) track, which essentially isinformation management, and the human resource track, which is associatedwith people (Sveiby, 2001). According to David and Foray (2002), knowledge-based activities in a given sector or community emerge when people effectivelydeploy ICT in concerted and coordinated efforts to co-produce and utilise newknowledge. On these premises, tourism is not just an information-intensiveindustry but is also knowledge intensive. This is evidenced by a variety ofknowledge-intensive concepts and applications that are in use in the sector;these include business process reengineering, yield management and customerrelationship management (Buhalis, 1998; Law & Wong, 2003; McDonnell, 2007;Sheldon et al., 2001) that can be dovetailed into the K-CREDIT process. AsDavid and Foray (2002: 5) point out, ‘knowledge based activities occur whenpeople, supported by information and communication technologies, interactin concerted efforts to co-produce (i.e. create and exchange) new knowledge’.In the tourism sector, networks and value chains have been characterised byvertical, horizontal and diagonal relationships (Dale, 2000). These relationshipsare based on information flows, which Cooper and Lewis (2001) contend to be

K-CREDIT as an Economic Growth Driver in Pro-Poor Tourism 459

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

value-creating systems wherein all stakeholders work to co-produce value.Thus, this value-added information flow represents the knowledge dynamicswhich require dedicated CREDIT tools. Bouncken and Pyo (2002) have dis-cussed the deployment of such complex knowledge-based software and Webapplications as well as knowledge supply chain matrices in the tourism andhospitality industry. These solutions however, tend to be capital intensiveand are geared from the perspective of developed markets. From the stand-point of pro-poor tourism, the utility of K-CREDIT goes beyond mere infor-mation access and value addition, by addressing an opportunity asymmetrythat would allow the economically marginalised communities to earn a liveli-hood by taking advantage of their ‘tourismisable’ assets. Thus it is consistentwith the concept of entitlement (Sen, 1981) which is pertinent to the theoreticalframework of poverty reduction. On the more practical side, in describing anaction research initiative for introducing knowledge-driven commerce sup-ported by ICT for community-based tourism in Asian rural communities,Harris et al. (2006) have discussed and analysed specific cases coveringdiverse scenarios and scopes for intervention in the economically underprivi-leged geographies of the region.

At a macro level, the growing contribution of intangible capital in the total pro-ductive wealth being created (a function of GDP per capita) and distributed (afunction of the Gini coefficient) is a pointer to the emergence of a knowledge-based economy. The World Bank,2 in its knowledge for development (K4D)initiative, has identified four enablers for creating and sustaining such aknowledge-based economy, which are (i) economic incentive and institutionalregime, (ii) education, (iii) ICT and (iv) innovation system. In addition to theseenablers, K-CREDIT for tourism in economically disadvantaged geographiesrequires adaptable, scalable and economically viable models and solutions at thegrassroots level for developing sector-specific infostructure and human resourcecapacity building for exploiting this infostructure, which would serve as econ-omic growth drivers at the last mile of the tourism value chain. However, initiat-ives in this space undertaken by international and multinational entities such asthe UNCTAD e-tourism platform and the UNWTO-Microsoft partnership havetended to focus mainly on the macro level. Thus, Destination ManagementOrganisations (DMOs) and by extension, Destination Managements Systems(DMS) in developing and least-developed countries are usually the immediatebeneficiaries of such initiatives. Issues pertaining to downstream linkages (e.g.last mile connectivity and capacity-building) that require intervention at thegrassroots level have not been getting the level of attention they deserve.Advantages accruing to small, micro- and medium-tourism enterprises, if any,as an outcome of such interventions tend to benefit local elites that representthe interests of multinational corporations and international donor agencies(Todaro, 1997) and geographically, are usually confined to pockets of relativeaffluence in the urban centres, further aggravating regional disparities alongthe centre-periphery lines (Friedman, 1966).

As almost three-quarters of the world’s poor are living in rural areas (HumanDevelopment Report, 2003), pro-poor tourism initiatives need to have a strongnon-urban focus in order to have a meaningful impact. With specific referenceto rural economics, Eggleston et al. (2002) have demonstrated the role of

460 Current Issues in Tourism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

infostructure in lowering transaction overheads and facilitating informationflows. While cautioning that ICT in itself does not provide quick-fix solutionsto all the socio-economic ills encountered by the rural poor, Duncombeand Heeks (1999) emphasise that diffusion of information with the help oftechnologies amongst the rural communities facilitates the creation of informalcommunication and knowledge networks among entrepreneurs. This ICT-facilitated business-to-business (B2B) networking, complements conventionalsupport mechanisms for entrepreneurship capacity building in rural commu-nities and are therefore applicable in rural pro-poor tourism initiatives. Also,the infostructure-induced disintermediation provides an impetus to business-to-consumer (B2C) interaction by creating direct marketing channels, just asin the case of small- and medium-tourism enterprises (SMTEs) in moremature and developed markets (Buhalis, 1998), though last mile connectivity,human resource capacity, trust and credibility issues tend to be barriers.In an increasingly globalised, knowledge-driven economy, tourism-focusedK-CREDIT can spur entrepreneurship even in remote locations that havetourism assets of significance and not necessarily have alternative sources ofeconomic sustenance. Such tourism enterprise will consequently bring abouteconomic and cultural revitalisation of isolated communities (di Castri &Balaji, 2002). It follows from this discussion that for this to happen, theK-CREDIT process needs to be examined from the perspective of last mileconnectivity and capacity building.

Last Mile Connectivity and the Grassroots Tourism EnterpriseAt the last mile of the pro-poor tourism value chain are the grassroots

tourism enterprises or GTEs, which are a subset of SMTEs with the additionalcharacteristic that reflects pure local ownership in the targeted geography ofintervention. Members of or groupings within a local community that engagein supplying tourism services (e.g. community-based tourism) constitute aGTE. SMTEs are usually sector bound, whereas GTEs may have revenuestreams from other non-tourism activities, depending on available opportu-nities. They rely on tourism to complement existing income sources. It isthese GTEs that ought to be the direct beneficiaries of pro-poor tourism inter-ventions. Such interventions are carried out by a multitude of entities acrossvarious geographies, but in order to have a perceptible impact, coordinationand scalability are essential. Ashley et al. (2001) and Chok et al. (2007) havepointed out that the stranglehold on tourism infrastructure and assets by inter-national corporations, outsiders and local elites prove an impediment for thepoor to access tourism markets, even though the technological means may beavailable.

As hitherto emphasised, this stranglehold is attributable at least in part, tothe knowledge asymmetry perpetuated by the lack of access to information.Any tourism value chain structured to be inclusive in nature is flawed if themodel is skewed towards disproportionately benefiting the corporate entities.In fact, massive leakages by way of repatriation of the tourist dollar by thesemultinationals makes a mockery of many of these enclave-driven (andso-called pro-poor tourism) interventions in developing and underdeveloped

K-CREDIT as an Economic Growth Driver in Pro-Poor Tourism 461

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

economies. Some of these are a direct consequence of the macro-economicpolicies thrust on cash-strapped governments of developing and least-developedcountries by international funding entities such as the World Bank and IMFwhich subscribe to neo-liberal orthodoxy as their guiding principles (Onis &Senses, 2005). Only a fraction of the income generated by these externallyowned enclave-driven tourism businesses is retained at the destination levelon account of such leakages through repatriation of profits, imports andexpatriate salaries (Harris et al., 2006). Citing UNCTAD estimates, Pluss andBackes (2002) peg such foreign exchange outflows at an average of 40% to50%. Whilst such ventures indeed generate employment opportunities for thelocals, these tend to be low-end semi- or unskilled jobs which are characterisedby reduction of wages and benefits as well as layoffs in the name of cost cutting(Beddoe, 2004). Against this backdrop, Schilcher (2007: 166) redefines pro-poortourism as tourism that can ‘deliver disproportionate benefits to the poor toreduce the inequalities which have been found to limit the potential forpoverty alleviation’. The argument being made here is that minimisingleakages through empowerment at the grassroots will benefit the nationaleconomy at the macro level and more importantly, the host communities atthe micro level. In addition to economic benefits, local ownership of thebusiness asset would generate a sense of pride and entrepreneurial spirit.Without diluting the right of an investor to make a healthy return on invest-ment, what is of serious concern is the benefits (or lack thereof) accrued tothe host community in the post-intervention phase. This consideration tendsto get overlooked in many of the initiatives undertaken by NGOs andinternational agencies. Such interventions are usually characterised by atop-down structure which is rooted in the modernisation or neo-liberal devel-opment constructs that essentially promote a way of life with Western valuesand consumerist mindset (Harrison, 1992) and overrides the existing indigen-ous knowledgebase. Murphy (1985), whilst critical of such top-down approachtowards tourism and development, advocates methods centred on the goalsand aspirations of the communities affected by tourism. In this case, anintegrated approach towards tourism development is favoured.

However sophisticated tourism planning may have become, Murphy (1985)observes that one element tends to get neglected: the needs and desires of thelocal residents in communities affected by tourism. This criticism is in conso-nance with a distinct proclivity among policymakers and development special-ists to move away from purely growth-oriented economic progress towardsmore sustainable forms of development (Redclift, 1987). The disillusionmentwith the lack of desired impact of approaches based on the modernisationand neo-liberal theories has led to an alternative paradigm in developmentthinking, of which grassroots level pro-poor tourism is a manifestation(Chambers, 1998). This alternative paradigm requires strategies that limit thenegative effects of economic behaviour on local environments and cultures(Zurick, 1992); an example being the sidelining or even substitution of indigen-ous and traditional knowledge in favour of imported (i.e. mostly Western) eru-dition on the premise that the former is not compatible with modernity(Harrison, 1988). The alternative development agenda takes environmental,social and cultural sustainability into account. The enterprise is owned and

462 Current Issues in Tourism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

managed by the community and for the community, with the purpose ofenabling visitors who would largely be urbanities or overseas tourists, toincrease their awareness and learn about the host community and local waysof life, and thereby partake of their local knowledgebase. What differentiatesalternative development in the context of tourism from other top-down para-digms such as modernisation, dependency and neo-liberalism is the former’sability to engage the local communities (i.e. the targeted beneficiaries) in thedevelopment process (Scheyvens, 2007; Telfer, 2002). In addition to facilitatingaccess to external knowledge resources, the alternative development paradigmalso place significant emphasis on the indigenous knowledgebase, with theinfostructure serving as an enabler for a K-CREDIT continuum that provideswhat Wellman and Hampton (1999) define as a ‘glocal’ (i.e. globalþlocal) foot-print vis-a-vis access and visibility. As Teo (2003: 460) has pointed out, theglobal system is a ‘multi-layered and intricate web of structures, agents andinteractions that interweaves external conditions with local ones in both coop-erative as well as competitive ways’.

Pro-poor tourism projects and models twined in ICT apparatus have come upacross developing countries and least developed countries (LDCs) with theobjective of achieving a sustainable approach towards community develop-ment. The infostructure is largely paradigm neutral (from the perspective ofdevelopment theories) in the sense that it can as effectively be used from a mod-ernisation and neo-liberal standpoint as much as from alternative developmentstrategies in tourism that are characterised by small scale, local ownership,community participation and cultural and ecological sustainability (Brohman,1995). Thus, the infostructure which includes low-cost hardware, connectivityand Free Open Source Software (FOSS) solutions needs to be complementedby adequate capacity building efforts at the grassroots level to enable them toleverage the ‘glocal’ knowledgebase and stronger linkages within the pro-poor tourism value chain that will ensure scalability of K-CREDIT in thesector and thus help break the stranglehold of corporate entities whichAshley et al. (2001) have alluded to, in addressing the knowledge asymmetry.

Capacity Building and Tourism Open Educational ResourcesCapacity building itself when practiced from the perspective of top-down

development paradigms compels the potential and existing GTEs to relysolely on content created in developed geographies, since they lack theresources to create and disseminate their own. Thus, even if indigenousdomain knowledge is available in abundance, as is usually the case(Edwards, 1989), the content based on it is scarce for want of affordable docu-mentation and dissemination channels. Customizing existing content createdelsewhere, both print and digital, to suit the local context is usually not anoption on account of intellectual property laws. And even when this is not anissue, from the perspective of Polanyi’s (1967) notion of tacit knowledge, thisknowledge may not be interpreted by the recipients in the way it was intendedto. As Van de Bunt-Kokhuis (2004: 273) has lamented, ‘in the Internet age,Western owners of content and software want to seek benefits from intellectualproperty and commercial monopolies’.

K-CREDIT as an Economic Growth Driver in Pro-Poor Tourism 463

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

As illustrated in Figure 1, even in instances of knowledge transfer facilitatedby development agencies and NGOs, the content is usually sourced from devel-oped geographies and transferred with little or no adaptation to the beneficiaries(Nadkarni et al., 2006). This may at times be accompanied by facilitators under-taking training missions to the recipient destination but the training is conductedbased on content created in donor geographies, which may bear little relevanceto the local context. With reference to knowledge management in the develop-ment sector, Van Der Velden (2002: 25) cautions that such approaches ‘treatknowledge as a rootless commodity, and information and communications tech-nology as a key knowledge tool’ and recommends the adoption of alternativeapproaches ‘that focus on the knower and on the context for creating andsharing knowledge. . .for people with different cultural, social, or educationalbackgrounds’. These inferences hold true at the community level as well as ata wider national level. Thus, in order to make tourism capacity building forthe GTEs more effective, it is necessary to ensure a seamless knowledge-flowmechanism across the donor-recipient spectrum that uses the infostructure asa conduit and is unencumbered by copyright restrictions. Such a mechanismcan inform the K-CREDIT process in a manner that will make the capacity build-ing tools (e.g. educational resources) contemporary and contextually relevant.From the perspective of K-CREDIT, a level playing field brought about by thismechanism will transform the donor–recipient relationship to that of collabora-tive content creators, distributors and consumers.

To facilitate capacity building in the pro-poor tourism context, Nadkarni et al.(2006) have suggested the concept of Tourism Open Educational Resources(TOER) that takes into consideration the contextual relevance as well as intel-lectual property rights issues. Tourism specialists from developed geographieswho are engaged in development work, particularly involving capacity build-ing, often have little or no knowledge about the local culture and society of thebeneficiary geography and therefore find it difficult to integrate these localnuances into their decisions and actions (Desjeux, 1981). TOER contributionsfrom or about beneficiary geographies based on the indigenous knowledgebasecan better inform the decision-making process and action plans of developmentspecialists and consequently enhance the level of impact of their interventions.Also, these resources can form a conduit for the K-CREDIT process that willenable consumers, suppliers, policymakers, scholars, practitioners andstudents of tourism in developing as well as developed geographies to reapthe benefits of a more diverse and balanced milieu of a ‘glocalised’ knowledge-base that reflect the true essence of tourism.

Figure 1 Classical approach to pro-poor tourism capacity building

464 Current Issues in Tourism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Glocal Knowledge-driven Pro-poor Tourism Value ChainThe earlier discussion has placed the spotlight on the potential of K-CREDIT

in addressing poverty alleviation issues through tourism. Scheyvens (2007: 241)has emphasised that ‘alternative community based initiatives are often not suc-cessful because of factors ranging from the lack of business skills of communitymembers to the lack of connections to mainstream tourism enterprises’. Thisvalidates the importance of ICT-driven last mile connectivity and capacity-building in the convergence space of K-CREDIT and pro-poor tourism. Thechallenge however is to translate the concept into a practicable mechanism.The criteria for this to happen are scalability and economic viability andthese can be achieved through coordination among stakeholders across thepro-poor tourism value chain. Initiatives in this domain by international organ-isations and development agencies have been largely focused on macro-levelinterventions. On the other hand, NGOs and local governments have beenengaged in isolated micro-level interventions across economically disadvan-taged geographies. Thus, there is a dearth of seamless backbone connectivityacross the pro-poor tourism value chain.

The key is to develop economically viable and scalable business models atthe grassroots level by leveraging the infostructure to tap into the glocal knowl-edgebase and contribute to it. Recent trends such as Web 2.0, which is charac-terised by online collaboration and sharing of information for free or at nominalcosts, thereby allowing the consumer to also be a producer, would facilitate andsustain dynamic and interactive indigenous knowledge systems. Also, asopposed to mass tourism which tends to be hedonistic, enclave driven andcapital intensive (and therefore a prerogative of the transnational or megacorporations), more egalitarian tourism products such as eco-tourism, commu-nity-based tourism and heritage tourism are characterised by lower levels ofconsumerism and higher degree of socio-cultural awareness, wherein patronsadapt more to the prevailing ground realities at the destination and interactmore closely with the local community. Thus, sustainability and integrity ofthe environment, culture and business at the destination are prioritised. Suchnon-institutionalised tourism reduces leakages and increases the economicbenefits to the host society (Cohen, 1972).

Conventionally, ICT in tourism is associated with disintermediation;however, with reference to K-CREDIT in the pro-poor tourism contextwherein the infostructure serves as the conduit for knowledge flows, stake-holders assume the role of benign intermediaries. As illustrated in Figure 2,these benign intermediaries in the pro-poor tourism value chain can bebroadly grouped into:

(1) NGOs/local administration(2) Financiers (donors/investors)(3) DMOs(4) International agencies

In order to ensure the long-term sustainability of a pro-poor tourism inter-vention, a workable business model is a must and its economic viability iscontingent upon the ability of the owners (in this case, the GTE) to use the

K-CREDIT as an Economic Growth Driver in Pro-Poor Tourism 465

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

K-CREDIT mechanism to their advantage. In this approach, the benign inter-mediaries contribute in the development of the infostructure and capacitybuilding at the grassroots level for facilitating the K-CREDIT process. Theintervention assumes the form of an investment (instead of aid or charity)from which economic and social returns are to be expected. Subsidies fromgovernment entities and donor or aid agency funding are channelled into theintervention as seed capital or viability gap funding.

With reference to tourism initiatives in developing countries, Jamieson(2006: 6) has suggested various options for financing in view of the inade-quacy of public budgets, whilst emphasizing that ‘achieving sustainabletourism development requires the private sector and community to act aspartners in cooperation toward a sustainable society’. Additional fundingmechanisms such as the public–private partnership (PPP) route openavenues for conventional capital sources such as micro-credit, private invest-ment or where viable, even a commercial loan for a GTE, which, dependingon locally available opportunities, may engage in other forms of commerce,in addition to tourism. Best and Maclay (2002: 77) have observed that knowl-edge-intensive interventions in the economically disadvantaged geographieshave ‘been primarily sponsored and undertaken by governments, multilat-eral institutions, and nonprofits. Because of the desire to create what is essen-tially a public good (access to information and communication services), onlysecondary attention has been paid to entrepreneurism and sustainablebusiness’.

Figure 2 Stakeholders in the PPT Value Chain (Nadkarni, 2007)

466 Current Issues in Tourism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Thus, developing a profit-oriented business plan at the GTE level that willensure stable revenue streams in the post-intervention phase, irrespective ofthe source or type of funding, is not only desirable, but also essential. In thecontext of the new economy, as the Information Technology industry hasdemonstrated, there is no dearth of funding from alternative or non-conven-tional sources such as venture capitalists and angel investors into start-upswith sound ideas. A K-CREDIT culture at the grassroots can create conduciveconditions in addition to the visibility and awareness to attract such capitalwhich usually tends to get invested into ventures that are deemed too riskyby conventional funding entities such as banks. In developing a viablebusiness model for the GTE, there is no ‘one size fits all solution’ and themodel permutations will depend on the ground realities. What this discussionhas sought to highlight is the sheer variety of options available for financingGTE ventures. The specifics of the model deployed would vary from onegeography to another, but the underlying axiom is that the chances of sustain-ability of the chosen business plan would be contingent upon the extent towhich the GTE can leverage the K-CREDIT mechanism. In this context, the sta-keholders’ role as benign intermediaries in the K-CREDIT process meritsfurther discussion.

For a given intervention, the host NGO contributes in (i) developing needsassessment and viable business plan in consultation with the GTE, (ii) locatingsuitable investors for the seed capital, (iii) identifying appropriate and cost-effective technologies that will serve as an enabler for K-CREDIT, (iv)working with the local government for building physical and statutory infra-structure and (v) establishing channels with DMO/NTO to consolidate theGTE’s upstream linkages.

Financiers include donors and investors from private and public arenas,ranging from banks, micro-credit institutions to angel investors and venturecapitalists. Given the relatively high-risk nature of investments in the GTEs,due diligence for credibility and creditworthiness is conducted in coordinationwith the host NGO. This addresses one of the main bottlenecks for GTEs inaccessing start-up and working capital. Under the supervision of the hostNGO, the risk of the investment or lending terms being disproportionatelyone sided in favour of the financer to the extent of being exploitative isminimised.

The principal function of the DMO, usually a state body, is to create a globalbrand for the destination, and build credibility and trust among consumers. Forinstance, the enthusiasm of a potential tourist wanting to experience a genuineCBT product provided by a GTE would be tempered by the credibility factor.Thus, the DMO serves as a focal point for the GTEs in its jurisdiction andacts as a catalyst in helping them gain visibility and credibility that wouldallow them to capitalise on the disintermediation opportunities in the B2Cspace. A possible way of endorsing a GTE’s credentials on the basis of thedue diligence conducted by the host NGO is a link to the GTE’s website (if ithas one) or by space (sub-sites) provided on the DMO’s portal to those whodo not have the means of creating and maintaining their own website. TheDMO’s endorsement will mitigate the likely tourist’s risk perception of theGTE, thereby facilitating direct purchase of the tourism product without any

K-CREDIT as an Economic Growth Driver in Pro-Poor Tourism 467

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

intermediaries. Thus, improving the trust quotient in the B2C space wouldcontribute in reducing leakages. In addition to this, the DMO acts as a catalystfor a two-way knowledge flow between the GTEs populating the downstreamof the value chain and the international organisations that are locatedupstream. Thus, in addition to the GTEs gaining a global gateway and visibilitythrough upstream linkages via the DMO with the platforms of entities such asthe UNCTAD and UNWTO, they can (at least in theory) access and contributeto the vast domain knowledge repository and expertise available on a globalscale, thereby leading to a truly dynamic K-CREDIT process. Again, theDMO helps in adapting and localizing content where necessary.

Through the infostructure available, the international organisations (e.g.UNCTAD or UNWTO) assume the role of global knowledge aggregators ofthe indigenous knowledge systems as well as use their extensive global foot-print to promote destinations and products that would otherwise not havethe means to ‘purchase’ visibility through conventional commercial channels.In coordination with the DMOs, the international organisations develop animplementation master-plan and a GTE supplier database factored withrespect to geography and product. They contribute to the development ofappropriate FOSS (including TOER) customised for tourism applications. TheUNCTAD e-tourism platform is a case in point. The open source architectureallows the DMOs and other benign intermediaries in adapting such a platformto suit local requirements, without major costs and intellectual property rightsrestrictions. In addition to the market intelligence and other critical businessmetrics that would be accessible to the GTEs through such platforms, theirsheer volumes on these platforms would provide them an opportunity to col-lectively negotiate access on preferential terms with global commercialtourism supply chains through legacy Global Distribution Systems (GDS) aswell as electronic payment gateway mechanisms. This will place the GTEs inan advantageous position in being able to leverage direct B2C channelsthrough disintermediation, as well as via existing commercial tourismsupply chains.

ConclusionThe article has evaluated the role of knowledge as a growth enabler in pro-

poor tourism. In the interest of dispelling semantic ambiguity, the term‘Knowledge Management’ (KM) was critically analysed prior to examiningthe core theme. On the basis of this analysis drawn on published literatureon the subject, it can be argued that knowledge as an asset cannot bemanaged in the conventional sense. Thus, the acronym K-CREDIT was intro-duced as a robust alternative to KM. After an overview of the essence of pro-poor tourism and the knowledge process in the tourism sector, the convergencespace of K-CREDIT and pro-poor tourism was defined. The value of K-CREDITin spurring entrepreneurship at the grassroots level (GTE) even in remote geo-graphies having tourism assets was established. Last mile connectivity andcapacity-building were identified as critical enabling factors for the GTEs toleverage knowledge assets to their socio-economic advantage. The significanceof the last mile of the pro-poor tourism value chain, which often tends to get

468 Current Issues in Tourism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

overlooked in macro-level interventions, was emphasised with the help ofcontemporary trends in development thinking: in particular, the alternativeparadigm in the pro-poor tourism context would be a more effective poverty-alleviating tool in comparison with neo-liberal or modernist approaches. Thedevelopment of Tourism Open Educational Resources was suggested as a con-temporary and contextually relevant mechanism for capacity building for theGTEs. The importance of deploying economically viable and scalable businessmodels for the GTEs by tapping into the ‘glocal’ knowledgebase was empha-sised. In this scheme, so as to create a sense of ownership and responsibilityat the grassroots level, it was stressed that the monetary component of thepro-poor tourism intervention should be in the form of investment (and notsimply aid or charity). The upstream stakeholders in the pro-poor tourismvalue chain were identified and their roles and responsibilities as benign inter-mediaries were discussed.

It is worth taking note of the fact that the consensus at the Yale Access toKnowledge Conference (April, 2007)3 was that access to knowledge is asmuch a human right as much as it is an economic policy imperative. Thecrux of the matter is that global economic growth cannot be divorced fromdevelopment. In the context of the contentious World Trade Organisation nego-tiations, Nath (2007) has stressed that, ‘. . . the need for delivering on the devel-opment dimension rests not merely on fairness and equity and justice – thoughthat would be reason enough. But healthy economics itself demands it. Wherewould Europe and America sell their goods if Asia and Latin America andAfrica were sick and poor and floundering?’

On the premise that knowledge deficit is a key driver of poverty, this articlehas argued for a dedicated mechanism in knowledge creation, retention,exchange, devolution, interpretation and treatment (K-CREDIT) in tourism atthe grassroots level that spans economically disadvantaged destinations.Such a technology-driven mechanism based on sound economic principleswill strengthen the tourism sector’s credentials as an enabler of povertyreduction. The destination’s overall economy will stand to benefit as a resultof the multiplier effect that the revenue streams through tourism will generateat the grassroots (in addition to existing sources of income, if any) and contain-ment of leakages through commercial disintermediation.

Thus, through the provision of tourism services, the stratum of the popu-lation at the bottom of Prahalad’s (2006) economic pyramid will be net creators(and to a considerable extent, retainers) of wealth. This is exactly opposite toPrahalad’s (2006) approach to the bottom of the pyramid concept, where thefocus is on leveraging the economically disadvantaged communities’ purchas-ing and consumption capacity for white goods and services supplied by multi-national entities, which contributes to economic leakages. Without having totake recourse to the modernisation path to economic development whichespouses a transition from agriculture to industry and from rural to urban(Lewis, 1954), a more eco-friendly and less neo-liberal and capital intensiveservice-driven alternative development paradigm that preserves and enrichesindigenous knowledge systems through ICT enabled K-CREDIT processwould be a potent instrument in achieving the Millennium DevelopmentGoals.

K-CREDIT as an Economic Growth Driver in Pro-Poor Tourism 469

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Sanjay Nadkarni, MacaoUniversity of Science and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa,Honolulu, HI, USA (sanjay@must.edu.mo) (nadkarni@hawaii.edu).

Notes1. http://www.unwto.org2. http://web.worldbank.org3. http://icommons.org/2007/04/28/access-to-knowledge-too

ReferencesAlvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2001) Odd couple: Making sense of the curious concept

of knowledge management. Journal of Management Studies 38 (7), 995–1018.Ashley, C., Roe, D. and Goodwin, H. (2001) Pro-poor tourism strategies: Making tourism

work for the poor. Overseas Development Institute Pro-Poor Tourism Report No. 1 (April).London: Russell Press.

Beddoe, C. (2004) Labour standards, social responsibility and tourism. Tourism concern.On WWW at http://www.tourismconcern.org.uk/downloads/pdfs/TC-Union-Final2.pdf (Accessed 12 September 2007).

Bennett, O., Roe, D. and Ashley, C. (1999) Sustainable tourism and poverty eliminationstudy. Department for International Development (UK). On WWW at http://www.propoortourism.org.uk/dfid_report.pdf (Accessed 11 September 2007).

Best, M. and Maclay, C. (2002) Community Internet access in rural areas: Solving theeconomic sustainability puzzle. In G. Kirkman, J. Sachs, K. Schwab and P.Cornelius (eds) The Global Information Technology Report 2001–2002: Readiness for theNetworked World (pp. 76–88). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bond, M. and Ladman, J. (1972) Tourism: A strategy for development. Nebraska Journal ofEconomics and Business 2 (1), 37–52.

Bouncken, R. and Pyo, S. (2002) Knowledge Management in the Hospitality and TourismIndustry. New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press.

Brohman, J. (1995) Economic and social silences in development studies: A theoreticalcritique of neoliberalism. Third World Quarterly 16 (2), 297–318.

Buckingham Shum, S. (1998) Negotiating the construction of organisational memories.In U. Borghoff and R. Paresch (eds) Information Technology for KnowledgeManagement (pp. 55–78). Berlin: Springer.

Buhalis, D. (1998) Strategic use of information technologies in the tourism industry.Tourism Management 19 (3), 409–423.

Buhalis, D. (2003) e-Tourism: Information Technology for Strategic Tourism Management.London: Prentice Hall.

Cattarinich, X. (2001). Pro-poor tourism initiatives in developing countries: analysis ofsecondary case studies. PPT Working Paper No. 8 for DFID. On WWW at http://www.propoortourism.org.uk/ppt-initiatives.html (Accessed 17 March 2007).

Chambers, R. (1998) Us and them: Finding a new paradigm for professionals in sustain-able development. In D. Warburton (ed.) Community and SustainableDevelopment:Participation in the Future (pp. 117–147). London: Earthscan.

Chok, S., Macbeth, J. and Warren, C. (2007) Tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation: Acritical analysis of ‘Pro-Poor Tourism’ and implications for sustainability. CurrentIssues in Tourism 10 (2&3), 144–165.

Civi, E. (2000) Knowledge management as a competitive asset: A review. MarketingIntelligence & Planning 18 (4), 166–174.

Cohen, E. (1972) Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research 38 (1),164–182.

Cooper, C. and Lewis, J. (2001) Transformation and trends in the tourism industry:Implications for distribution channels. In D. Buhalis and E. Laws (eds) Tourism

470 Current Issues in Tourism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Distribution Channels: Practices, Issues and Transformations (pp. 315–331). London:Continuum.

Cownan, R., David, P. and Foray, D. (2000) The explicit economics of knowledge codifi-cation and tacitness. Industrial and Corporate Change 9 (2), 211–253.

Dale, C. (2000) The UK tour operating industry: A competitive analysis. Journal ofVacation Marketing 6 (4), 357–367.

David, P. and Foray, D. (2002) An introduction to the economy of the knowledge society.The International Social Science Journal 171, 9–23.

Desjeux, D. (1981) Development as an acculturation process. Development: Seeds of Change3 (4), 33–38.

di Castri, F. and Balaji, V. (2002) Tourism, Biodiversity and Information. Leiden: Backhuys.Drucker, P.F. (1969) The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to our Changing Society. New York,

NY: Harper and Row.Duncombe, R. and Heeks, R. (1999). Information, ICTs and small enterprise: findings

from Botswana. IDPMDI Working Paper No. 7, Institute for Development Policyand Management Development Informatics, University of Manchester.

Edwards, M. (1989) The irrelevance of development studies. Third World Quarterly 11 (1),116–135.

Eggleston, K., Jensen, R. and Zeckhauser, R. (2002) Information and communicationtechnologies, markets and economic development. In G. Kirkman, P. Cornelius, J.Sachs and K. Schwab (eds) The Global Information Technology Report 2001–2002:Readiness for the Networked World (pp. 62–75). New York: Oxford University Press.

Friedman, J. (1966) Regional Development Policy: A Case Study of Venezuela. Boston: MITPress.

Ghimire, K. (1997) Emerging mass tourism in the south: reflections on the social oppor-tunities and costs of national and regional tourism in developing countries. UNRISDDiscussion paper No. 85, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

Harris, R., Vogel, D. and Bestle, L. (2006) E-community-sased tourism for Asia’s indigen-ous people. In L. Dyson, M. Hendriks and S. Grant (eds) Information Technology andIndigenous People (pp. 245–256). Hershey: Idea Group Inc.

Harrison, D. (1988) The Sociology of Modernisation and Development. London: Routledge.Harrison, D. (1992) Tourism and the Less Developed Countries. London: Belhaven.Hildreth, P.J. and Kimble, C. (2002) The duality of knowledge. Information Research 8 (1),

paper no. 142. On WWW at http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper142.html.Accessed 15.04.07.

Human Development Report (2003). On WWW at http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/ (Accessed 12 March 2007).

Jamieson, W. (2003) Poverty Alleviation through Sustainable Tourism Development.New York: UNESCAP.

Jamieson, W. (2006) Defining urban tourism destination management. W. Jamieson (ed.)Community Destination Management in Developing Economies (pp. 3–36). New York: TheHaworth Hospitality Press.

Law, R. and Wong, J. (2003) Successful factors for a travel web site: Perception of onlinepurchasers in Hong Kong. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 27 (1), 118–124.

Lewis, W. (1954) Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour. TheManchester School 26 (2), Reprinted in Gersovitz, M. (ed.) (1983) Selected EconomicWritings of W. Arthur Lewis (pp. 311–363). New York: New York University Press.

McDonnell, I. (2007) E-Travel and Tourism: Marketing and Management Techniques.Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Murphy, P. (1985) Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen.Nadkarni, S. (2007) The role of knowledge management in pro poor tourism,

UNCTAD Conference on e-Tourism for Growth in Asia Pacific, On WWW athttp://etourism.unctad.org (Accessed 27 April 2007).

Nadkarni, S., Venema, M. and Chaplin, I. (2006) Augmenting capacity building intourism: A case for development of open educational resources, Working Paperpresented at the UNWTO Ulysses Conference, Madrid, On WWW at http://ertr.tamu.edu/conferenceabstracts.cfm?abstractid¼2161 (Accessed 23 February 2007).

K-CREDIT as an Economic Growth Driver in Pro-Poor Tourism 471

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Nath, K. (2007) India and the future of the world trade talks, Special Address at theUniversity of Oxford. On WWW at http://commerce.nic.in/May07_release.htm#h6(Accessed 7 May 2007).

Onis, Z. and Senses, F. (2005) Re-thinking the emerging post-Washington consensus.Development and Change 36 (2), 263–290.

Pluss, C. and Backes, M. (2002) Red Card for Tourism? 10 Principles and Challenges for aSustainable Tourism Development in the 21st. Century. Freiburg: DANTE.

Polanyi, M. (1967) The Tacit Dimension. New York: Doubleday.Prahalad, C. (2006) The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through

Profits. New Jersey: Wharton School Publishing.Redclift, M. (1987) Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. London: Methuen.Roe, D. and Urquhart Khanya, P. (2001) Pro-poor Tourism: Harnessing the World’s Largest

Industry for the World’s Poor. Prepared for World Summit on SustainableDevelopment, Johannesburg, 2002. International Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED) and Regional and International Networking Group (RING).

Rogerson, C. (1999) The support needs of rural SMMEs: The case of Phuthaditjhaba, FreeState Province. Agrekon 38, 132–158.

Rogerson, C. (2000) SMME infrastructure and policy in South Africa. In M. Khosa (ed.)Infrastructure Mandates for Change 1994–1999 (pp. 175–196). Pretoria: Human ScienceResearch Council.

Scheyvens, R. (2007) Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. Current Issues in Tourism 10(2, 3), 231–254.

Schilcher, D. (2007) Growth versus equity: The continuum of pro-poor tourism and neo-liberal governance. Current Issues in Tourism 10 (2, 3), 166–193.

Schutz, A. (1967) The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: NorthwesternUniversity Press.

Sen, A. (1981) Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Sharpley, R. (2002) The challenges of economic diversification through tourism: The caseof Abu Dhabi. International Journal of Tourism Research 4 (3), 221–235.

Sheldon, P., Wobber, K. and Fesenmaier, D. (2001) Information and CommunicationTechnologies in Tourism. Oxford: CAB.

Sveiby, K. (2001) What is Knowledge Management? Brisbane: Sveiby Knowledge Associates.On WWW at http://www.sveiby.com/faq.html?Whatis (Accessed 4 mARCH 2007).

Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarborough, H. and Hislop, D. (1999) Knowledge management andinnovation; networks and networking. Journal of Knowledge Management 3 (4), 262–275.

Telfer, D. (2002) The evolution of tourism and development theory. In R. Sharpley and D.Telfer (eds) Tourism and Development – Concepts and Issues (pp. 35–78). Sydney:Channel View Publications.

Teo, P. (2003) Striking a balance for sustainable tourism: Implications of the discourse onglobalisation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10 (6), 459–474.

Todaro, M. (1997) Economic Development. New York: Longman.United Nations (2000) Millennium Summit Goals. New York: United Nations.Van de Bunt-Kokhuis, S. (2004) Globalization and the freedom of knowledge. Higher

Education in Europe 29 (2), 269–284.Van Der Velden, M. (2002) Knowledge facts, knowledge fiction: The role of ICTs in knowl-

edge management for development. Journal of International Development 14 (1), 25–37.Wellman, B. and Hampton, K. (1999) Living networked on and offline. Contemporary

Sociology 28 (6), 648–654.Wilson, T. (2002) The nonsense of knowledge management. Information Research 8 (1). On

WWW at http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html (Accessed 12 March 2007).World Bank (2000) Attacking Poverty: World Development Report 2000/01. New York:

Oxford University Press.Zhao, W. and Brent Ritchie, J. (2007) Tourism and Poverty Alleviation: An Integrative

Research Framework. Current Issues in Tourism 10 (2, 3), 119–143.Zurick, D. (1992) Adventure travel and sustainable tourism in the periphery economy of

Nepal. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82 (4), 608–628.

472 Current Issues in Tourism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 19:

08 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014