Tourism in the Sustained Hegemonic Neoliberal Order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainable Development (SD) has become a unifying concept that transcends conflicting discourses. Over time it has become a fundamental political concept in the current world order. This paper explores the structures that (re)produce the world-system in which tourism is embedded. Following Fletcher’s (2011) demonstration of tourism as a force of capitalist expansion, we will refer to the concept of the International Political Economy (IPE) to discuss how the world-system has been structured and institutionalized. It appears fundamental to understand this path to face the actual IPE construct in which we see tourism grow year after year in scale and scope. The shift towards neoliberalism as a main narrative has been vastly discussed (Harvey, 2007; Brown, 2015; Mosedale, 2016) but we will turn to the Hardt and Negri’s Theory of Empire (2000). We will first consider the question of how sustainable development, within its virtuous global reach, is in fact, a primarily Empire-like discourse, especially when it is carried by International deterritorialized institutions. The second question we will address is the role of tourism in the moments of Empire processes of transformation and globalisation. We conclude that tourism is contributing to the main process of globalization and the market dominance of neo-liberalism expressed in Empire. If there is different strand of thought and research that advocates tourism and sustainable development as a locus of change in the economic and world system, it has only had limited success at the margins, while discourses of globalization and mass tourism keep going strong.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".