zlacker

> The tourism industry has a significant impact on Spain’s economy, generating over 70 billion euros in gross value added (GVA) in 2019. This represents a substantial contribution to the country’s GDP and employment, with over 2.5 million people employed in the tourism sector

Well maybe you will just tell Spanish government how to replace that?

>>mapcar+(OP)
Im not saying one should ignore it. Just that it’s not a particularly good industry for a country, particularly poor countries.

The pay in tourism is terrible, usually minimum wage, except for the owners of capital, who gain enormous returns on investing in hotels / airbnbs / tourist aimed businesses.

That means it has an awful return for the ones most in need which are the poor. It’s not a distributive industry.

On top of that, it can cause a “resource curse” type phenomenon where great beaches or some other attraction causes enormous amounts of investment in tourist infrastructure leading to a lack of opportunity for other businesses which could thrive with investment. Tourist gives you such great returns on investment it doesn’t make sense to do anything else if you have capital.

Can tourism be A PART of a healthy economy ? Sure. But it shouldn’t be in charge of that economy, in which case I’d say you’re looking at a “resource curse” type economy where only the rich prosper.

>>kranke+wa
> Can tourism be A PART of a healthy economy ? Sure. But it shouldn’t be in charge of that economy

This is true of any sector. New York get volatile when over-reliant on FIRE; San Francisco goes into a depression when valuations dip.

Also, this is a story about Barcelona. An industrial city. Tourism is a minority.

>>mapcar+(OP)
Having lived in two tourism-heavy cities over my life, I don't think most cites are fundamentally opposed to tourism per se. But — and that is a big "But" it is a question of the amount and the kind of tourism. Too much of the wrong tourism in the wrong area of the city can be a negative thing for living quality, for life outside touristic seasons, for the general development of neighborhoods etc.

So it is within a cities interest to have some degree of control ofer the amount and kind of tourism. And controlling the number of accommodations is a pretty good lever.

>>atoav+DX
> Too much of the wrong tourism in the wrong area of the city can be a negative thing for living quality, for life outside touristic seasons, for the general development of neighborhoods etc.

If that was really a concern, cities like Barcelona would be railing against hostels and would impose a higher baseline for tourist taxes to eliminate the economic feasibility of projects catering to low-cost party tourism.

>>chipda+fu1
Well yes and no. Cities do have hostels and hotels under control by their ability to give or deny permits. If everybody can turn their private flat into an tourist rental just by signing up to an online platform that is no longer the case. Suddenly what was zoned as residental turns into tourism.

Surely there are multiple ways ro tackle that, e.g. one could require permits for those as well, but I didn't defend the measures taken by Barcelona, I defended the fact that unregulated AirBnB can turn into a problem for a city and the people living there.

>>atoav+402
> If everybody can turn their private flat into an tourist rental just by signing up to an online platform that is no longer the case.

In Barcelona, making apartments available as short-term rentals involves the exact same type of reglatio that hostels need to go through to operate.

If AirBnB is suddenly deemed a problem in spite of the absolute lack of evidence, in the very least regular horeca businesses are more to blame.

>>JumpCr+1h
Tourism has widely distorted market prices for housing and accommodation in Barcelona however. Proving it can have very nefarious effects even in relatively diverse economies.