Sir, - The current outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has focused attention on the role of tourism in the Irish economy. This attention may prove fortuitous if we can learn some lessons for the future from what, one hopes, will be a short-term crisis. The policy response so far suggests the following:
1. Tourism is still the poor relation of economic policy despite being the clear indigenous success story in the Irish economy since 1986. The absence of a clear understanding of tourism's role was amply demonstrated by recent policy actions. It now seems obvious that the initial reaction of our policy-makers and their advisers was disproportionately weighted to protect agriculture, with little thought of the effects these actions would have for tourism and related activities.
2. The disparate make-up of tourism helps it to filter expenditure to numerous areas of the economy (aviation, retail, entertainment, services, etc.) - most importantly, to areas often in most need of development. But this economic strength is problematic because the numerous beneficiaries of tourism are not easily identifiable. As a result, there is no constituency for politicians to serve. By contrast, farmers are a homogeneous and easily identifiable group which has managed to get vastly disproportionate finance from the EU budget.
3. The absence of a clear strategic focus on tourism is to be found in the reaction to the current crisis and also in the failure of policy-makers to develop long-term, visionary plans for the industry. Yes, we do have spending plans, but there is no clear vision of tourism's part in the long-term development of the economy. The results of this failure include the current congestion at many of our tourism "honey-pots"; fiscal measures that damage the environment for tourism rather than preserving it (e.g. the seaside resort schemes); and a tourism industry that is driven by volume rather than value.
People working in tourism will continue to suffer until this crisis abates. The debate on measures to ease their financial hardship reveals the paucity of our thinking on services. It seems that people in agriculture, who hold 7.8 per cent of the jobs in the economy will be compensated, but the 8.3 per cent whose jobs depend on tourism will not receive the same treatment because it "would be too difficult". This response is hardly appropriate in an increasingly service-dominated economy.
Let's hope the current crisis will lead to some clearer thinking on the important role of tourism and other services in the Irish economy and society of the future. - Yours, etc.,
Jim Deegan, Director, National Centre for Tourism Policy Studies, University of Limerick.