Search results

This paper aims to provide a perspective on the economic assessment of special events.

Three main approaches to the economic evaluation of special events are distinguished. These are: standard economic impact analysis, computable general equilibrium modelling, and cost benefit analysis. An historical account of the use of these approaches is given together with a discussion of the advantages and limitations of each.

An important conclusion is that the evaluation of special events should go beyond economic impact analysis in favour of a more comprehensive “hybrid” assessment.

The paper puts event evaluation into perspective and points to a promising future direction of study. An expected outcome of the use of hybrid models is a narrowing of the divide between practitioners and theorists regarding best practice event evaluation to the benefit of all stakeholders.

The critical dimension and the one that can unify knowledge through systemic interrelationships, is unification of the purely a priori with the purely a posteriori parts of total reality into a congruous whole. This is a circular cause and effect interrelationship between premises. The emerging kind of world view may also be substantively called the epistemic‐ontic circular causation and continuity model of unified reality. The essence of this order is to ground philosophy of science in both the natural and social sciences, in a perpetually interactive and integrative mould of deriving, evolving and enhancing or revising change. Knowledge is then defined as the output of every such interaction. Interaction arises first from purely epistemological roots to form ontological reality. This is the passage from the a priori to the a posteriori realms in the traditions of Kant and Heidegger. Conversely, the passage from the a posteriori to a priori reality is the approach to knowledge in the natural sciences proferred by Cartesian meditations, David Hume, A.N. Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, as examples. Yet the continuity and renewal of knowledge by interaction and integration of these two premises are not rooted in the philosophy of western science. Husserl tried for it through his critique of western civilization and philosophical methods in the Crisis of Western Civilization. The unified field theory of Relativity‐Quantum physics is being tried for. A theory of everything has been imagined. Yet after all is done, scientific research program remains in a limbo. Unification of knowledge appears to be methodologically impossible in occidental philosophy of science.

Among the various factors influencing tourists to visit an overseas country is that of promotion/marketing activity by tourism operators and government tourist commissions in the destination country. The effects of tourism promotion have not previously been subjected to rigorous economic analysis however. The paper firstly shows how the standard economic justifications for government support of industry in circumstances of market failure, ie externalities/non appropriability of benefits, risk and uncertainty and indivisibilities, can be employed in the context of overseas tourism promotion to present a prima facie case for government support. It then provides an analysis of the benefits and costs of tourism promotion which is applicable to all countries. A model of tourism demand and supply is presented which enables consideration of the effects of tourism promotion in an economy with no distortions and an economy with distortions. The final section addresses issues in evaluating promotion and attempts to assess circumstances in which tourism promotion generates positive net benefits to an economy. Although the data apply to Australia, the results are generalizable. The framework of assessment can be used to assess the benefits and costs of tourism promotion in both developed and lesser developed countries.

This paper reports some results of an investigation of the product innovation strategies of Australian high technology firms. While theoretical and empirical research undertaken outside of Australia reveals the importance of firms' adopting appropriate new product strategies to enhance their profits and prospects for growth (Booz, Allen & Hamilton 1982, Maidique & Zirger 1984, Cooper 1985), very little is known about the strategic behaviour and performance of Australian manufacturing firms whether high, medium or low technology.

New products are major contributors to company growth and profits and a key factor in business planning. Despite its importance, new product development has long been recognised as one of the riskiest activities of business enterprises with factors such as shorter product life cycles, capital shortages, government restrictions, fragmented markets, changing competitive environments and rapid technological change operating to maintain risks at high levels. To reduce the risks there needs to be greater understanding of the determinants of success and failure in this endeavour and continuing efforts to apply such knowledge in product innovation management. One area in need of more intensive investigation is the NEW PRODUCT PROCESS, the set of activities which move the product from the idea stage to the market launch of a product incorporating the idea.

New products are major contributors to company growth and profits and a key factor in business planning. Despite its importance, new product development has long been recognised as one of the riskiest activities of business enterprises with factors such as shorter product life cycles, capital shortages, government restrictions, fragmented markets, changing competitive environments and rapid technological change operating to maintain risks at high levels. To reduce the risks there needs to be greater understanding of the determinants of success and failure in this endeavour and continuing efforts to apply such knowledge in product innovation management. One area in need of more intensive investigation is the New Product Process, the set of activities which move the product from the idea stage to the market launch of a product incorporating the idea.

In recent years, in keeping with the new emphasis on science as a human activity, a process of inquiry, philosophers of science have begun to pay more attention to the criteria for choosing between competing hypotheses or theories. There is now a widespread tendency to treat the standard criteria of theory appraisal, such as a theory's accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity, fruitfulness, elegance, etc., not as rules which dictate choice but as values, maxims, norms which influence scientific decision making (Kuhn, 1977). In opposition to those seeking an algorithm of theory choice it is now recognised that there are, inevitably, certain subjective elements in scientific theory appraisal. The standard criteria, while providing the shared basis for choice, not only are imprecise in their meaning and application but, when deployed together, often conflict with one another as, for example, when one theory is more accurate but less simple than another. Thus two scientists fully committed to the same set of standards may, if they interpret these standards differently, or if they attach different weights to different desiderata, reach different conclusions as to the merits of competing theoretical constructs.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the reasons that mega‐events rarely realise their potential for host destinations and to suggest issues that need to be addressed in rectifying this issue.

The paper is based on a synthesis of the literature as well as the substantial event‐related experience of the authors.

The key reason that mega‐events do not generate the expected benefits for the host destination is that event organisers and destination managers adopt a short‐term perspective rather than seeing mega‐events as part of a long‐term strategy for the destination. Even the planned legacies are often not realised as resource constraints in the lead up to the staging of the event often results in resources being shifted away from planning for legacies and being allocated to helping cover the more immediate needs of the event.

If the mega‐event knowledge portal that is proposed in this paper to help improve the overall contribution that mega‐events make to host destinations is developed, it will prove to be a fertile source of data for longitudinal research in the field of mega‐events.

As so many mega‐events fail to deliver the expected benefits for the host destination, this paper provides some useful insights into the key issues that need to be addressed in order to help overcome this problem.

This chapter explores the issues in estimating the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the tourism industry and related activities in Australia. A production-based approach is employed and its rationale is explained. The scope of tourism consists of the economic activities of tourism-characteristic and tourism-connected sectors as defined in the Australian Tourism Satellite Account (TSA). The GHG emissions have been estimated for 2003–04, the latest year for which detailed industry GHG emissions data are available in a form suitable for this type of estimate. Tourism's GHG emissions are compared with other industries in the Australian economy. The policy implications of the results are discussed. It should be possible to adopt a broadly similar method for any destination with a TSA, enabling tourism stakeholders to play an informed role in assessing appropriate climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies for their destination.

Since it is necessary to give up real resources, goods and services to provide for the demands of tourists, the net benefits to an economy from tourism growth are typically substantially lower than gross tourism expenditure. Recognizing this, tourism researchers are paying increased attention to the concept of yield so as to inform benefit cost analysis, government policy, marketing strategies and investment decisions in the context of tourism development. First, defines the concept of yield and discusses some problems in its measurement; identifies distortions to the competitive tourism market and the implications for tourism yield; and also explores the relationship between yield and tourism expenditure as an indicator of yield. Concludes that the yield from tourism goes beyond visitor expenditure and should take account of a wide range of economic, environmental and social costs and benefits of tourism development.