Introduction: studying tourism public policy by Hall

Government intervention.. This week we go one step further to look at what we do to in order or in hope to tame the 'Tourism Monster' and make it our best friend even.. We call these public policies, in our case tourism public policies.. Ideally and theoretically, in trying to shape a beautiful tourism sculpture for the community, various actors come together and make adjustments to the public policies that deal with tourism industry. Sounds simple enough? Hardly, because it doesn't end there. [heykel resmi]

From the first chapter of Hall's book [Tourism and Public Policy], we understand that 'public policy' does not have a single meaning that has been agreed on by those who are involved in the policy making process. Because each interest group has a different agenda, each view public policy in a different perspective. Nevertheless I also like Dye's (1992) interpretation of public policy as, 'whatever governments choose to do or not to do'. Looking back at Turkey, public policy is definitely what Dye says. Of course interest groups such as business and environmental groups are in effect while formulating the policies but it is more of a government job to create and implement public policy. And usually, ideology plays a big part on those public policies. Every government tries to benefit their supporter base so they design the policies in accordance with the ideological direction of the current administration.

When it comes to Tourism Public Policy, things don't get any less complicated. Given that Tourism is a relatively 'vague and spread' subject which can encompass different meanings for each interpreter. Thus, policy being like an 'elephant; recognizable yet hard to define' applies very much to the tourism public policy as you can imagine. For my understanding, I compare it with the word 'terrorism' almost; how each government or political group defines 'terrorism' according to their own needs and perceived outcomes, so they act upon THEIR perception rather than rationalizing it for the greater number.

As it is evident that there are many players to public policy formulation such as the government of course, pressure groups, community leaders and members, and many other with interests at stake, there has to be a common ground where all these parties can and will meet to create public policies. I think that common ground is the attitude of putting the 'region and its people' before anything else and doing what is best for the region and its people. That is the critical role of an ideal government I think; it is not to create a policy rather than to act as the mediator between all parties to find the best policy solutions for that region.

Last but not least, a policy as it has been mentioned in Hall's piece, is a theory more than anything. It is created for a given issue with the hope that, at the end some desirable outcome will be achieved. You can guess that not all the time the desirable outcome is achieved however. Therefore policy is an ever changing process. As people change, as interests change, even as climate changes the policies are (should be) in constant change in keeping up with the times...