The UNWTO has announced that 1 billion tourists account for 9% of GDP. The 1 billion figure is incredible, with 2012 being the first year in which 1 billion international tourism trips have been made. It has been some time coming, as the global economy has meant that we have been hovering just below this number for several years now, but it is nevertheless a landmark figure (although we could debate the actual meaning of this!).
The "9% of GDP" figure is however an incredible overstatement. In 2011, international tourists spent a total of $1.03 trillion on 982 million trips. World GDP (or GWP) in that year was $69 trillion. Tourism spending was almost exactly 1.5% of GWP, so it is incredible that the UNWTO figure for economic contribution comes up at six times this expenditure share.
The accompanying picture has a small clarification ("direct, indirect and induced"), which might give some clue. Including induced multiplier effects in economic contribution calculations is just the wrong thing to do. The direct and indirect multiplier is always less than one, so it looks like they have put in an induced multiplier of over 6. I think the largest "total multiplier" (including direct, indirect and induced effects) that I have ever seen calculated was around 2.5, so there is simply something unbelievably wrong going on with the UNWTO's 9% figure.
With little to go on beyond what you can see in the links above, it does look like the "9% of GDP" figure not only includes inappropriately large multipliers, but also includes domestic tourism, while the 1 billion tourists is only international tourism trips.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Monday, February 15, 2010
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Richard Branson
In a follow on to the post below, I can't resist the following from the Telegraph's interview with Richard Branson.
"Sir Richard added that although fuel prices have dropped markedly from the peak of $147 a barrel last year, they have almost doubled to $65 in the last three months, increasing the pressure on airlines."
So they are still less than half what they were last year, when all the prices and fuel surcharges went up? How does that increase the pressure? C'mon Richard, don't make excuses. A recession is a recession.
...and also, while quoting an interview with Richard Branson, and being very cuddly with him in that article, the Telegraph have a set of 'related links' which no doubt will change over time. As I look at them, they include the "World's best passenger complaint", about a Virgin Atlantic meal, "Virgin on the ridiculous", a photogallery showning the very worst of Richard Branson's publicity campaigns, and "On the spot: train travel in the UK", a rather critical view of Branson's railways. Incidentally, I occasionally travel by Virgin trains and while other trains in the UK are rarely overcrowded like this, every time I have travelled with Virgin they are always overcrowded with passengers standing for hours on a journey (sure, there is always a reason... the previous train did not run or was delayed, or some technical reason means there are not enough coaches).
"Sir Richard added that although fuel prices have dropped markedly from the peak of $147 a barrel last year, they have almost doubled to $65 in the last three months, increasing the pressure on airlines."
So they are still less than half what they were last year, when all the prices and fuel surcharges went up? How does that increase the pressure? C'mon Richard, don't make excuses. A recession is a recession.
...and also, while quoting an interview with Richard Branson, and being very cuddly with him in that article, the Telegraph have a set of 'related links' which no doubt will change over time. As I look at them, they include the "World's best passenger complaint", about a Virgin Atlantic meal, "Virgin on the ridiculous", a photogallery showning the very worst of Richard Branson's publicity campaigns, and "On the spot: train travel in the UK", a rather critical view of Branson's railways. Incidentally, I occasionally travel by Virgin trains and while other trains in the UK are rarely overcrowded like this, every time I have travelled with Virgin they are always overcrowded with passengers standing for hours on a journey (sure, there is always a reason... the previous train did not run or was delayed, or some technical reason means there are not enough coaches).
Increase the APD... eventually.
There are growing calls in the UK for the government to scrap a proposed increase in air passenger duty (APD) later this year.
APD is a tax levied by the UK government on international departures. Currently this is £10 per departure within Europe and £40 for other destinations (I am simplifying a little. The full details are here).
Last year Gordon Brown announced that from November 2009, these rates would increase. There will be four bands based on distance of capital cities from London, with rates (for economy) ranging from £12 to £85. For all international departures, this is an increase. For those trips less than 2,000 miles [capital city to capital city] the increase is modest (£10 to £12). For some (greater than 6,000 miles) this is slightly more than doubling the rate.
The Telegraph has a campaign to get the change removed. See it here.
"Recession and APD forces airlines to cancel routes".
The recession has caused airlines to cancel routes. APD has not [at least, yet].
"Passenger tax will be a disaster for the Caribbean".
Disaster? this is almost laughable. The Telegraph campaign continues "Next year, passengers flying to the Caribbean will have to pay £75 per person APD in economy class or £150 per person on flights in other classes. It goes without saying that the addition of up to £600 to a four-person family's air fare will have devastating effects."
- even in economy class, a family of four is likely to pay £4,000 for return flights to the Caribbean. Sure, £600 is a lot of tax to pay ontop of that, but of course the £600 is for classes above economy. British Airways are currently quoting £6,500 per person for first class flights to Jamaica [per person] - I saw a United flight for an amazing £8,000. Even in business class, the Telegraph's family of four will be paying around £12,000. An additional £600 will not have a devastating effect on a family able to afford such a fare.
"Airlines facing 'worst year in aviation history'" [Richard Branson].
This is almost certainly true. With maybe the exception of the post-September 11th downturn. It is not because of the scheduled increase in APD.
"Budget 2009: Chancellor urged to scrap APD "
While the Telegraph's arguments are entirely false, and politically motivated to try and cause an embarassing U-turn from the government, the argument is deeper.
I have three points.
Firstly, we need to bear in mind that if it weren't for APD, international air transport from UK airports would be entirely untaxed. That's right, they pay no VAT and no tax on fuel. The new duties will in fact be approximately the same as if airlines paid VAT like most other industries, but complicated by the banding system, meaning that on some flights APD is cheaper than VAT would be, but more expensive on others [incidentally, a tax charging a percentage of ticket price would be far better than the band system]. It will not compensate for the fact that they do not pay tax on fuel.
Secondly, APD is often seen as a green tax. It is not. It is simply a VAT replacement, that has until now applied a tax at a rate around half what the airline industry would be paying if they were eligible for VAT. APD does not tax airlines in relation to their fuel use. From 2011 they will have to pay for CO2 emissions from fuel under the EU's emissions trading scheme. There will be outcries nearer thetime, not least to remove APD when emissions are taxed. These outcries have to be resisted.
Thirdly, it makes sense to tax international aviation. It is an export tax on a product where prices are not set by foreign markets (think OPEC and their raising of oil prices). The tax is relatively small compared to the total cost of a holiday (bear in mind that the figures above are just the prices of air fares), so it is unlikely that they will lead to large changes in demand. It is a progressive tax - the Telegraph's family of four paying an additional £600 are not on the breadline. While I cannot say that because of these arguments APD should be at rate x, it is clear that aviation should be at least as heavily taxed as any other industry.
Against these points, there is a very real arguement that this is not the right time for an APD increase. Those of you who have read some of my papers might guess that I do agree with this argument. Skilled workers, from airline pilots to cleaners and baggage handlers, are being laid off because of the recession. Some of these will become long-term unemployed, and their skills learned over years or decades will be lost to society. When the economy does eventually pick up we will regret these lost skills. As part of the government's fiscal stimulus, a boost to the airline industry (and to tourism) does makes sense. These industries are badly affected by the recession because they sell luxury goods (remember, see below, even domestic tourism demand is down by far more than GDP).
But again, the APD increase does make sense. In fact, it still looks small when the reasons for increasing the tax are considered. So, I call on Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling to:
- postpone the APD increase. You know that increasing taxes during a recession is a bad idea. The fiscal stimulus [and quantitave easing]
do nothing specifically for aviation or tourism.
- increase APD when the recession has finished. The only reason for postponing is the recession. You must resist all pressure from the industry to scrap the increase altogether.
- make the APD increase larger when it is eventually increased. Even the scheduled APD increase does not compensate for international aviation's VAT-free status.
- include domestic flights. The environmental rationale for taxing flights is greater for shorter flights. Why should these be tax free?
- ensure that international aviation is included at Copenhagen. It just has to be. Don't let industry pressure tell you otherwise.
APD is a tax levied by the UK government on international departures. Currently this is £10 per departure within Europe and £40 for other destinations (I am simplifying a little. The full details are here).
Last year Gordon Brown announced that from November 2009, these rates would increase. There will be four bands based on distance of capital cities from London, with rates (for economy) ranging from £12 to £85. For all international departures, this is an increase. For those trips less than 2,000 miles [capital city to capital city] the increase is modest (£10 to £12). For some (greater than 6,000 miles) this is slightly more than doubling the rate.
The Telegraph has a campaign to get the change removed. See it here.
"Recession and APD forces airlines to cancel routes".
The recession has caused airlines to cancel routes. APD has not [at least, yet].
"Passenger tax will be a disaster for the Caribbean".
Disaster? this is almost laughable. The Telegraph campaign continues "Next year, passengers flying to the Caribbean will have to pay £75 per person APD in economy class or £150 per person on flights in other classes. It goes without saying that the addition of up to £600 to a four-person family's air fare will have devastating effects."
- even in economy class, a family of four is likely to pay £4,000 for return flights to the Caribbean. Sure, £600 is a lot of tax to pay ontop of that, but of course the £600 is for classes above economy. British Airways are currently quoting £6,500 per person for first class flights to Jamaica [per person] - I saw a United flight for an amazing £8,000. Even in business class, the Telegraph's family of four will be paying around £12,000. An additional £600 will not have a devastating effect on a family able to afford such a fare.
"Airlines facing 'worst year in aviation history'" [Richard Branson].
This is almost certainly true. With maybe the exception of the post-September 11th downturn. It is not because of the scheduled increase in APD.
"Budget 2009: Chancellor urged to scrap APD "
While the Telegraph's arguments are entirely false, and politically motivated to try and cause an embarassing U-turn from the government, the argument is deeper.
I have three points.
Firstly, we need to bear in mind that if it weren't for APD, international air transport from UK airports would be entirely untaxed. That's right, they pay no VAT and no tax on fuel. The new duties will in fact be approximately the same as if airlines paid VAT like most other industries, but complicated by the banding system, meaning that on some flights APD is cheaper than VAT would be, but more expensive on others [incidentally, a tax charging a percentage of ticket price would be far better than the band system]. It will not compensate for the fact that they do not pay tax on fuel.
Secondly, APD is often seen as a green tax. It is not. It is simply a VAT replacement, that has until now applied a tax at a rate around half what the airline industry would be paying if they were eligible for VAT. APD does not tax airlines in relation to their fuel use. From 2011 they will have to pay for CO2 emissions from fuel under the EU's emissions trading scheme. There will be outcries nearer thetime, not least to remove APD when emissions are taxed. These outcries have to be resisted.
Thirdly, it makes sense to tax international aviation. It is an export tax on a product where prices are not set by foreign markets (think OPEC and their raising of oil prices). The tax is relatively small compared to the total cost of a holiday (bear in mind that the figures above are just the prices of air fares), so it is unlikely that they will lead to large changes in demand. It is a progressive tax - the Telegraph's family of four paying an additional £600 are not on the breadline. While I cannot say that because of these arguments APD should be at rate x, it is clear that aviation should be at least as heavily taxed as any other industry.
Against these points, there is a very real arguement that this is not the right time for an APD increase. Those of you who have read some of my papers might guess that I do agree with this argument. Skilled workers, from airline pilots to cleaners and baggage handlers, are being laid off because of the recession. Some of these will become long-term unemployed, and their skills learned over years or decades will be lost to society. When the economy does eventually pick up we will regret these lost skills. As part of the government's fiscal stimulus, a boost to the airline industry (and to tourism) does makes sense. These industries are badly affected by the recession because they sell luxury goods (remember, see below, even domestic tourism demand is down by far more than GDP).
But again, the APD increase does make sense. In fact, it still looks small when the reasons for increasing the tax are considered. So, I call on Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling to:
- postpone the APD increase. You know that increasing taxes during a recession is a bad idea. The fiscal stimulus [and quantitave easing]
do nothing specifically for aviation or tourism.
- increase APD when the recession has finished. The only reason for postponing is the recession. You must resist all pressure from the industry to scrap the increase altogether.
- make the APD increase larger when it is eventually increased. Even the scheduled APD increase does not compensate for international aviation's VAT-free status.
- include domestic flights. The environmental rationale for taxing flights is greater for shorter flights. Why should these be tax free?
- ensure that international aviation is included at Copenhagen. It just has to be. Don't let industry pressure tell you otherwise.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Following on from last month's data from the UNWTO that worldwide international tourism fell by 8% in the first quarter of this year, much hope here in the UK has been put into the idea that British tourists will holiday in the UK this year rather than going abroad.
VisitBritain has just this week released statisics for domestic tourism in the UK here. The main results are that domestic tourism is down 13.6% (trips) and 14.5% (spending) in the first quarter.
Of course, this doesn't necesarily mean that trips will be down over the summer, as just possibly (so the industry hopes) tourists are taking fewer foreign trips and second trips and concentrating their spending on one big domestic holiday over the summer. We will have to wait and see...
VisitBritain has just this week released statisics for domestic tourism in the UK here. The main results are that domestic tourism is down 13.6% (trips) and 14.5% (spending) in the first quarter.
Of course, this doesn't necesarily mean that trips will be down over the summer, as just possibly (so the industry hopes) tourists are taking fewer foreign trips and second trips and concentrating their spending on one big domestic holiday over the summer. We will have to wait and see...
Sunday, May 17, 2009
A swine flu pandemic will infect up to 60 million jobs - Business News, Business - The Independent
I have become wary of forecasting the effects of "worst case scenarios" on tourism. The problem is that you come up with a number that is between zero and a very large number. The WTTC has been doing this:
A swine flu pandemic will infect up to 60 million jobs
Far more interesting is the effects that the Mexican outbreak of swine flu is having on the Mexican economy. The closure of Sol Melia hotels is both worrying and indicative of how easy it is for footloose multinationals to switch locations when the going gets tough.
Even more worrying though is this bizare quote, coming remember as the WTTC predicts 60 million jobs being lost from a "worst case scenario":
"WTTC chairman Geoffrey Kent told delegates that economic problems and pandemic scares would ease in the long-term. 'Don't worry about the credit crunch. It will go away. Don't be discouraged by world events. They'll sort themselves out. They always do. Don't be discouraged by swine flu. It's all overblown anyway,' he said."
A swine flu pandemic will infect up to 60 million jobs
Far more interesting is the effects that the Mexican outbreak of swine flu is having on the Mexican economy. The closure of Sol Melia hotels is both worrying and indicative of how easy it is for footloose multinationals to switch locations when the going gets tough.
Even more worrying though is this bizare quote, coming remember as the WTTC predicts 60 million jobs being lost from a "worst case scenario":
"WTTC chairman Geoffrey Kent told delegates that economic problems and pandemic scares would ease in the long-term. 'Don't worry about the credit crunch. It will go away. Don't be discouraged by world events. They'll sort themselves out. They always do. Don't be discouraged by swine flu. It's all overblown anyway,' he said."
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Dubai Seeking More Tourists And Visitors With Aggressive Marketing Drive | World News | Sky News
Dubai Seeking More Tourists And Visitors With Aggressive Marketing Drive World News Sky News: "Tourism is one of Dubai's most important sectors. It contributes directly towards 19% of the city-state's GDP.
Indirectly, after factoring in retail sales and other related businesses, that figure could be as high as 30%."
Indirectly, after factoring in retail sales and other related businesses, that figure could be as high as 30%."
Monday, June 02, 2008
I like the "elderly tourist's" comments - a phd in there somewhere surely???
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/latestnews/display.var.2313728.0.bomb_drama_on_quay.php
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/latestnews/display.var.2313728.0.bomb_drama_on_quay.php
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Visit the land that time forgot...
Tired of those things that we take for granted in the West - democracy, freedom, life? Want a chance to experience things the way they used to be in those good old days before namby pamby liberals came along with their "democracy" idea, "freedom" and "human rights"? Well, you can- there are countries that preserve those out-of-fashion ideas like dictatorship, oppression and well, more oppression. Trouble is, these countries don't like foreigners wanderring around the place taking pictures. But now there is a land - Uzbekistan - that is open for visitors!
Yes, its true - you can now take your holiday in the country ranked 144th out of 150 countries in terms of political openness, where the government kills its citizens by the hundreds and hushes up the consequences, and where President Karimov takes "a ruthlessly authoritarian approach to all forms of opposition" (BBC).
In fact, Uzbektourism invites you (well, OK maybe not foreign nationals, I don't know) to create a logo and slogan to attract tourists to the country. The first prize in this competition, a trip to Turkey, must surely be tempting indeed to Uzbek citizens. In fact any trip to any other country would probably be a prize guaranteed to get the Uzbeks entering the competition in their thousands, so expect some tough competition in this er... competition.
If you can't be bothered to enter the competition proper, simply post your slogan as a comment here, and we'll have a vote later on the best one.
Yes, its true - you can now take your holiday in the country ranked 144th out of 150 countries in terms of political openness, where the government kills its citizens by the hundreds and hushes up the consequences, and where President Karimov takes "a ruthlessly authoritarian approach to all forms of opposition" (BBC).
In fact, Uzbektourism invites you (well, OK maybe not foreign nationals, I don't know) to create a logo and slogan to attract tourists to the country. The first prize in this competition, a trip to Turkey, must surely be tempting indeed to Uzbek citizens. In fact any trip to any other country would probably be a prize guaranteed to get the Uzbeks entering the competition in their thousands, so expect some tough competition in this er... competition.
If you can't be bothered to enter the competition proper, simply post your slogan as a comment here, and we'll have a vote later on the best one.
Monday, October 17, 2005
£80bn?
Stories (sky, ananova) are around reporting that tourism is now worth £80bn to the UK economy. This comes from a British Hospitality Association report. Amusingly the big story is that official statistics show that touirsts spent (in 2004) £75bn but this report shows it to be £81.5 bn - so by rounding off to £80bn most newspaper editors are deducting about a quarter of the story, which let's be honest is not a big one.
The sky story is also quite amusing in that it basically says "we thought tourism spending had fallen in 2004, but these new figures show that it increased!". If you change the way we count tourists every year, we can grow grow grow!!!
Also, other interesting BHA documents:
Top 10 Issues in 2005
Info on the new branding scheme for 2006
The sky story is also quite amusing in that it basically says "we thought tourism spending had fallen in 2004, but these new figures show that it increased!". If you change the way we count tourists every year, we can grow grow grow!!!
Also, other interesting BHA documents:
Top 10 Issues in 2005
Info on the new branding scheme for 2006
Friday, October 14, 2005
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)