The Economic Impact of Cruise Tourism on Jamaica
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Economic
Impact of Cruise
Abstract
Tourism is the largest industry
Tourism on
in the world and cruise tourism
has been the fastest growing
sector of this industry for the
past twenty years (World
Jamaica
Tourism Organization, 1998;
Wood, 2000). This growth in
cruise tourism is expected to
continue into the future as only
a small proportion of the
population who have the
resources to take a cruise have Gregory L. Chase
done so (Dickinson & Vladimir,
1997).
and
Although cruise tourism can
increase economic activity in a
David L. McKee
nation, there still may be a net
cost to an economy rather than
a net benefit. Cruise
expenditures can increase
overall output in an economy,
but the increased costs of factor Cruise tourism
inputs may cause these
expenditures to be less than the As part of an export-based development cruise tourism can
increased cost of the factor benefit a country by increasing or improving foreign exchange
inputs (Dwyer & Forsyth, 1998; earnings, profit and taxes, employment, externalities, terms of trade,
Grassel, 1999). Smaller island and economies of scale (Dwyer & Forsyth, 1998). In addition, cruise
destinations may incur costs, tourism requires less infrastructure compared to stopover tourism at
which are relatively more a tourist destination (McKee, 1998). Cruise tourism does not need
substantial (McKee, 1998). In large tourist facilities with high costs, such as hotels that sit idle in
this investigation Jamaica will the off-season (McKee, 1988).
be examined with an eye to
assessing the economic impact Leakages of tourist expenditures present a problem to cruise
that cruise tourism has had destinations. Leakages consist of tourist revenue flowing out of the
upon that particular small country in which it was spent. The main sources of leakages are
island destination. consumer goods (especially food and drink), repatriation of profits,
overseas promotional expenses and amortisation of external debt (UN
Commission on Sustainable Development, 1996). If the income from
tourism goes to people who reside outside of the country, instead of
Gregory L. Chase is Assistant residents, the benefits of tourism are small (Baaijens, Injkamp & Van
Professor of Economics and Montfort, 1997). Cruise tourism has been criticised for imposing local
Business, Department of Graduate costs without compensating benefits. Cruise passenger spending is
Studies, Loeb-Sullivan School of directed towards shopping where local content is low (KMPG Peat
International Business & Logistics, Marwick, 1996).
Maine Maritime Academy, Castine,
Maine, U.S.A. To maximise benefits the ports of calls need to be concerned
David L. McKee is Professor of with the local content of goods and services provided to cruise tourists
Economics, Department of (Mammozadeh & McKee, 1994) just as with any other type of tourist.
Economics, College of Business Nations that wish to increase the economic impact of cruise tourists
Administration, Kent State University, need to increase their per capita expenditures or increase the number
Ohio, U.S.A. of arrivals. In addition, cruise tourism can increase land based
16 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03tourism when cruise tourists are economic impact of cruise tourism Ct = co + c1(1- Tt)Yt + et (2)
impressed by a location on their for three jurisdictions in the It = io + i1(1- Tt - c1)Yt + st (3)
cruise visit, so they will return as Caribbean. He found that cruise
Gt = go + g1TtYt + ut (4)
stop-over tourists. The advantage tourism did not have a significant
of stopover tourists is that they economic impact on Bermuda and Mt = mo + m1(1 - Tt)Yt + wt (5)
spend 30 times what a cruise Barbados, but did have a Xt = Xt (6)
tourist spends (Wise, 1999). significant positive impact on the
Bahamas. However, the cruise Where,
Previous studies industry today is totally different
from when Mamoozadeh did his Y = Gross Domestic Product
Literature on the economic study. To begin with the size of C = Consumption
impact of cruise ships is the industry today is about three I = Investment
practically non-existent (Wood, times what it was then (Cruise G = Government Spending
2000). What does exist tends to Line Industry Association, 2001). X = Exports
focus on trends, fare structures, In addition, he did not consider M = Imports
or passenger profiles. However, leakages in his model. Allowing T = Tax Rate
Barnwell and Boxill (1998) for leakages of expenditures from t = Time
evaluated the economic impact in an economy makes the Keynesian c1, i1, g1, m1 = Coefficients
port and city improvements of multiplier more accurate (Archer, co, io, go, mo = Intercept terms
tourist facilities for cruise ships 1976; Sinclair & Sutcliffe, 1982).
e, s, u, w = Error terms
and their passengers in Port
Royal, Jamaica. Their study Model
To consider the impact of cruise
looked at supply aspects, by
tourism three additional
analysing the receipts of the main In the existing literature on the
variables, cruise tourist ex-
tourist establishments in Jamaica evaluation of the economic impact
penditures, stopover tourist
having direct transactions with of tourism, the multiplier model
expenditures, and total tourist
tourists. The revenues reported tends to be the dominant method
expenditures, were added to three
were assumed to represent of evaluation. The three most
different variations of the model.
tourist expenditures in Port commonly used versions of the
Royal, Jamaica. However, multiplier model are the
The first modification of the
Barnwell and Boxill acknow- computable general equilibrium,
model considers the impact of
ledged problems in their study input-out, and Keynesian model
cruise expenditures. So that the
due to the lack of cooperation, (see World Tourism Organization,
model becomes:
subjective definition of tourist 1999; Archer, 1976; Baaijens,
businesses, and not having all Injkamp & Van Montfort, 1997).
It=i2+i3(1-Tt-c1)Yt+i4CRt+st (7)
receipts considered.
This study employs a Keynesian Gt=g2+g3TtYt+g4CRt+ut (8)
Since 1994 a yearly study by version of the multiplier model to Mt=m2+m3(1-Tt)Yt+m4CRt+wt (9)
Pricewaterhouse, and more consider the economic impact of
recently Pric ewaterhouse cruise tourism for Jamaica. Where,
Coopers, for the Florida- Three different regressions for
Caribbean Cruise Association has three different multipliers CR = Cruise tourist expenditures
evaluated the economic impact of (government, imports, and i3, i4, g3, g4, m3, m4 = Coefficients
cruise tourism on several ports in investment) were used to i2, g2, m2 = Intercept terms
the Caribbean region. This study evaluate the impact of cruise
is different in that it is the only tourism. The version of the
The second modification considers
known study to directly consider Keynesian multiplier model
the impact of stopover tourist
spending by the crew of cruise employed was taken from
expenditures. So that the model
ships in the Caribbean region. McDonald (1997). This model
becomes:
The study uses a very limited considers leakages from imports,
number of random surveys of taxes, and savings, while at the
It=i5+i6(1-Tt-c1)Yt+i7SOt+st (10)
cruise ship passengers and crew same time considering the direct,
at each port to determine the indirect, and induced spending Gt=g5+g6TtYt+g7SOt+ut (11)
total spending on different from an additional unit of Mt=m5+m6(1-Tt)Yt+m7SOt+wt(12)
categories of goods and services at spending. The basic Keynesian
each of these ports. The use of model as described by McDonald Where,
surveys in this manner leads to is as follows:
many possible inaccuracies SO=Stopover tourist expenditures
(Barnwell & Boxill, 1998). Yt = Ct + It + Gt + Xt – Mt (1) i6, i7, g6, g7, m6, m7 = Coefficients
i5, g5, m5 = Intercept terms
Using a Keynesian multiplier And,
Mamoozadeh (1989) looked at the
THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 17The third modification includes omitted from the results, since procedure employed previously
total tourist expenditures in the they were not considered tourists. by McElroy and Tinsely (1982).
model, so that the model In the case of cruise ships, only
becomes: passengers were surveyed and The tourist expenditure variables
only those that left the ship. in the investment and
It=i8+i9(1-Tt-c1)Yt+i10ARt+st (13) Expenditures included all monies government multipliers had
Gt=g8+g9TtYt+g10ARt+ut (14) injected into the Jamaican additional adjustments to the
economy by cruise ship passen- method described above. For the
Mt=m8+m9(1-Tt)Yt+m10ARt+wt
gers (Tourist Expenditure Data is government multipliers the
(15) included in Table 1). The data on resulting percentage was
GDP, the components of GDP, multiplied by tax revenue as a
Where, and tourist expenditures were percent of GDP before sub-
adjusted by the inflation rate, tracting it from the tourist
AR = Total tourist expenditures obtained from the IMF, so that expenditure values, once again
i9, i10, g9, g10, m9, m10= Coefficients all of the values are in constant employing the method of McElroy
i8, g8, m8 = Intercept terms domestic currency over the period and Tinsely (1982). For the
of the study. The tax rates were investment multipliers the
This model considers the obtained from the Inter-American resulting percentage was
economic impact caused by Development bank (2000). multiplied by income available
cruise, stopover, and total tourist for investment divided by GDP
expenditures. Traditionally, the Regressions before subtracting it from the
most important reason for tourist expenditure values.
developing a tourism industry is On initial runs of the regressions
the expected macroeconomic the Variance Inflationary Factor The adjustments corrected for
benefit. This model is able to detected multicollinearity in double counting revenue from
consider a possible improvement many of the independent tourism and reduced multi-
in the balance of payments, since variables. The adjustment made collinearity in the data.
it considers increased expen- to the data to correct for Although, some of the multi-
ditures from cruise tourism, multicollinearity considered the collinearity was removed from
while taking import leakages into effect of leakages from the the multipliers, the import and
consideration. It is important to economy in terms of imports as a investment multipliers continued
consider the effects on imports percent of GDP, which was then to indicate high levels of multi-
with increases in tourism, since subtracted from one. The collinearity. Multicollinearity is
an increase in imports resulting p ercent was then not a violation of any assumption
expenditures due to tourism may multiplied by each of the differ- of the linear model and the
be large enough to trigger a ent types of tourist expenditures estimates produced are unbiased
decline in GDP (Grassl, 1999). and subtracted from them, a (Pindyck & Rubinfeld, 1991;
Data
Table 1: Tourist expenditures for Jamaica from 1981-1999:
Data for the model were collected In millions of Jamaican dollars adjusted for inflation.
from various sources. Data for Stop-over Cruise Total
GDP and the breakdown of the visitors passengers Expenditure
various components of GDP came
from the International Monetary 1981 20.33045339 0.40063595 20.731089
1982 26.14921192 0.56397146 26.713183
Fund (IMF). The different
1983 36.0816352 0.9075976 36.989233
tourist expenditures were 1984 90.7806042 2.78439876 93.565003
obtained from the Central Bank 1985 178.0426116 6.0644916 184.1071
of Jamaica, which the Jamaican 1986 295.02128 8.95432 303.9756
Tourist Board collected for the 1987 379.1083728 10.141836 389.25021
different types of tourist 1988 378.15547 13.96703 392.1225
expenditures. The collection 1989 478.7714888 18.0984672 496.86996
method was by exit surveys of 1990 873.102888 33.189912 906.2928
passengers at airports for 1991 1626.315679 80.8912168 1707.2069
1992 7863.886351 317.4920168 8181.3784
stopover tourists, and at the port
1993 11956.25101 509.1424223 12465.393
terminals for cruise ship 1994 23441.16231 1193.128253 24634.291
passengers. In each month a 1995 33822.8774 1663.4202 35486.298
minimum of 10% of each type of 1996 49870.34806 2710.13571 52580.484
tourist were surveyed to obtain 1997 50456.14686 2827.20285 53283.35
the expenditures data. 1998 58784.25237 2923.486632 61707.739
Individuals indicating they were 1999 72025.16389 3624.019163 75649.183
visiting family or friends were
18 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03Griffiths, Hill & Judge 1993). Table 2: Jamaica Government Expenditure Multipliers.
For the import and investment Standard
multipliers all of the results were Coefficients Error t Stat
statistically significant, so no
Cruise Tourist Expenditures
additional corrective action was
taken. Intercept -1.89706686 6.922506102 -0.27404336
Tax Revenue 1.276949125 0.15238473 8.379770905
The initial regressions runs Cruise Tourist Expenditures -0.209090262 0.125882162 -1.660999934
showed signs of heteroscedas-
ticity in some of the residuals. A Stopover Tourist Expenditures
transformation of the data to
logarithmic form gave the best Intercept -0.978031259 11.14368346 -0.08776553
Tax Revenue 1.171461935 0.145706925 8.039850761
results in correcting for this
Stopover Tourist Expenditures -0.123642144 0.106066484 -1.165704176
(Gujaranti, 1978). The con-
version to logar ithmic form Total Tourist Expenditures
changed the coefficients in the
regressions to elasticities. Intercept -1.493561744 24.1613404 -0.09291868
Tax Revenue 1.177110252 0.145585955 8.085328355
The Durbin-Watson test revealed Total Tourist Expenditures -0.127217597 0.107325959 -1.185338557
serial correlation in some of the
data. The Cochrane-Orcutt
iterative method corrected for multipliers seem to indicate that impact on import expenditures in
problems with serial correlation cruise expenditures did not have Jamaica. The results indicate
where it occurred. After a significant impact on govern- that a substantial part of tourist
convergence was reached using ment spending in Jamaica over expenditures leak out of the
the Cochrane-Orcutt iterative the period of this study. While economy. With cruise tourism
method the intercept term was the results for cruise tourism are leakages being larger than
adjusted for the individual seemingly insignificant, this is stopover tourist expenditures.
regressions (Kelejian & Oates, actually a positive aspect of This result coincides with the
1974; Pindyck & Rubinfeld 1991). cruise tourism. The two other impression that cruise tourists
types of tourist expenditures gave purchase more imported goods
In runs of the regressions for the similar findings. than stopover tourists.
investment multipliers the
Cochrane-Orcutt method failed to Import Multipliers (see Table Investment Multipliers ( s e e
remove the serial correlation. An 3): Table 4):
analysis of the residuals revealed
an outlier in the data, which was Overall, the import expenditure The investment multipliers
larger than three standard errors multipliers suggest that cruise, appear to indicate cruise,
from the mean. The data showed stopover tourist and total expen- stopover, and total tourist
a huge drop in investment in ditures did have a significant expenditures did have a
1999, which was a much larger
change than in any previous time
period. The outlier was dropped Table 3: Jamaica Import Expenditure Multipliers.
from the observations and the Standard
regressions were run again Coefficients Error t Stat
without the data p oint. The
Cruise Tourist Expenditures
results were greatly improved
and serial correlation ceased to Intercept 0.111006652 0.81402735 0.136367227
be a problem. Income 0.640348963 0.119652402 5.351743466
Cruise Tourist Expenditures 0.345796726 0.103040214 3.35593951
Results
Stopover Tourist Expenditures
The results for the regressions;
the coefficients, standard errors, Intercept -0.169767765 0.316355595 -0.53663589
and t-stats, for the multipliers Income 0.729416265 0.114643025 6.362500169
Stopover Tourist Expenditures 0.29424012 0.108029776 2.723694615
are presented in the following
tables. Total Tourist Expenditures
Government Multipliers ( s e e Intercept -0.157947735 0.378896646 -0.41686232
Table 2). Income 0.721391542 0.126366209 5.708737706
Total Tourist Expenditures 0.300861113 0.120161044 2.503815738
The government expenditure
THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 19Table 4: Jamaica Investment Expenditure Multipliers. (see Chase & Alon, 2002; Chase,
Standard 2002). However, it is suspected
Coefficients Error t Stat that gains from import sub-
stitution were eclipsed by the
Cruise Tourist Expenditures
importation of goods and services
Intercept 2.720865553 0.427556739 6.363753168 due to investment. The larger
Available to Invest 0.438720223 0.121858409 3.600245773 coefficient value for investment
Cruise Tourist Expenditures 0.519865242 0.105011085 4.950574916 compared to the import
coefficient value indicates that an
Stopover Tourist Expenditures increase in investment expen-
ditures would outweigh any
Intercept 0.638319249 0.129999572 4.910164227 decrease in imports, which
Available to Invest 0.427430914 0.144928617 2.949251318 explains the positive coefficients
Stopover Tourist Expenditures 0.58565638 0.138095354 4.240956433
of imports for total, cruise, and
Total Tourist Expenditures stopover tourist expenditures.
Intercept 0.631012875 0.12946161 4.874131221 Since the government was able to
Available to Invest 0.4240199 0.143978929 2.94501357 reduce overall expenditures as a
Total Tourist Expenditures 0.586769969 0.136687163 4.292794997 percent of GDP during the period
of this study, it would seem to
indicate that cruise tourism, and
the other types of tourism, do not
significant impact on investment the rate of investment expen- have an impact on government
expenditures in Jamaica. In ditures for total, cruise, and expenditures. This can explain
recent years Jamaica has been stopover tourist expenditures. the insignificance of the govern-
making large investments in However, the goods and services ment multipliers. However, this
infrastructure for tourists, such needed for the upgrading of these does not mean that cruise
as the Port Royal Development facilities were most likely tourism did not have an influence
project, as a way to increase imported, since construction on government expenditures.
tourist arrivals (Barnwell & materials are a major import for The 500% increase in the number
Boxill, 1998). These increased Jamaica. of cruise arrivals over the period
investment expenditures for of this study strongly indicate
tourism could explain why all of The source of financing for the that additional spending by the
these variables are significant. investment projects did not come government would be required
from the government. The for certain areas. Reductions in
Overall, it seems that cruise government had embarked on a spending could have been less in
tourism did have an impact on deficit reduction program, some programs and more in other
import and investment expen- resulting in a slow down in the programs if it were not for this
ditu res in Jamaica, but not growth of government expen- increase in cruise tourism in
government expenditures. The ditures (Economist Intelligence Jamaica. Citizens of the country
large development project Unit, 2000). However, Foreign of Jamaica would seem to be the
recently undertaken in Port Direct Investment (FDI) to losers, having a larger reduction
Royal, Jamaica, could explain Jamaica showed substantial in the number of goods and
why these results are significant, increases going from a negative 6 services provided by the
since this project represents a million dollars in 1981 to a government for them to
major investment and many of positive 523.7 million dollars in accommodate the incr ease in
the goods used for these projects 1999 (World Bank, 2000a). FDI cruise tourist arrivals. However,
may be imported. Construction was the primary source of as stated previously about
materials are a major import for funding for total, cruise, and investments, these expenditures
Jamaica (Central Intelligence stopover investment projects in may be directed towards cruise
Agency, 2000). Jamaica. Thus, the government tourists, but the locals may also
played a minimal role; so total, benefit from them, so deter-
Analysis cruise, and stopover tourist mining the exact loss to locals is
expenditures did not have a difficult.
Jam aica had embarked on a significant impact on government
major upgrading of tourist expenditures. Findings
facilities for both cruise and
stopover tourist facilities (see It seems probable that Jamaica When a country has a cruise
Barnwe ll & Boxill, 1998; developed some import industry there are costs to
Economist Intelligence Unit substitution industry for tourist consider. Major investments in
2000). This explains the positive related goods and services, as infrastructure must be made and
coefficients and the increase in been the case in other countries an unfavorable change in the
20 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03balance of payments occurs. In this shift in spending. The exact As a final note, this study used
the case of investment, if the loss of goods and services only expenditures by c ruise
country pays for the supplied by the government passengers. If the additional
infrastructure itself there will be would depend on how beneficial expenditures by the cruise ship
an increase in government the expenditures on cruise crew and the cruise ship line
expenditures. These increased tourists are for the locals. itself were included the impacts
expenditures by the government would most likely be larger.
for cruise tourist infrastructure
would mean decreased expen-
ditures for other purposes. While
locals may benefit from some of
these investments, they would
not have taken place without
cruise tourism. However, if the
country is able to finance these
infrastructure investments
through FDI, then they will not
have a significant impact on
government expenditures.
The infrastructure projects
required by cruise tourism
contribute to an increase in References
imports. These projects often Archer, B. (1976). Anatomy of a multiplier. Regional Studies, 10, 71-
require large imports of 77.
construction related goods and Baaijens, S.R., Injkamp, P., & Van Montfort, K. (1997). Explanatory
services. Once the infrastructure meta-analysis for the comparison and transfer of regional
for cruise tourist arrivals is in tourist income multipliers. Regional Studies, 32(9), 839-849.
place additional investment Barnwell, G., & Boxill, I. (1998). Socio-eco impact assessment Port
expenditures may become Royal Heritage Tourism Project, 1-33, 18 January 2001.
inconsequential. The demand for Available: http://www.portroyal-jamaica.com/frames.htm.
construction related goods and Central Intelligence Agency (2000). The world factbook, Jamaica, 18
services falls and there is an November 2000. Available: http:www.odci.gov/cia/
improvement in the balance of publications/factbook/geos/jm.html.
payments. However, periodic Chase, G. (2002). A contribution to understanding the economic
upgrades of cruise facilities seem impact of cruise ships in the Caribbean Basin region. Paper
to be necessary resulting in presented at the ASBBS Conference, Las Vegas, February 7-10.
periodic unfavorable changes in Chase, G., & Alon, I. (2002). Evaluating the economic impact of
the balance of payments. cruise tourism: A case study of Barbados. Anatolia, 1(1), 5-18.
Depending how these investment Cruise Line Industry Association (2001). Industry Overview, 25
expenditures are financed will January 2001. Available: http://www.cruising.org/press/
determine if they have an impact overview/industry_overview.htm.
on government expenditures. Dickinson, R.H., & Vladimir, A. (1997). Selling the sea: An inside look
at the cruise industry. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
There may be some import Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (1998). Economic significance of cruise
substitution by a country as the tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(2), 393-415.
number of goods and services Economist Intelligence Unit (2000). Country profile Jamaica,
supplied locally increases, but the London, 1-14, 20 January 2001. Available: http://db.Economist
expenditures on imports to build Intelligence Unit.com/report_full.asp?valname=CPAJMB&title=
and maintain the required Country+Profile+Jamaica.
infrastructure may outweigh the Grassl, W. (1999). Tourism and economic growth in the Caribbean, 1-
gains. 20, 23 December 2000. Available: http://geocities.com/
collegepark/library/3954/.
While there may seem to be no Griffiths, W.E., Hill, R.C., & Judge, G.G. (1993). Learning and
increase in government expen- practicing econometrics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
ditures with increased cruise Gujarati, D. (1978). Basic econometrics. New York: McGraw Hill.
tourism, this may just be a shift Inter-American Development Bank (2000). ESDB Query Facility, 24
in spending from one type of May 2001 http://database.iadb.org/esdbweb/scripts/esdbweb.exe
expenditure to another. Locals International Monetary Fund (1995). Direction of trade statistics.
would feel a reduction in the Washington, D.C.: IMF.
goods and services provided to International Monetary Fund (1988). Direction of trade statistics.
them by the government with Washington, D.C.: IMF.
THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 21International Monetary Fund (1988). International financial statistics
yearbook. Washington, D.C.: IMF.
International Monetary Fund (2000). International financial statistics
yearbook. Washington, D.C.: IMF.
International Monetary Fund (2001). Direction of trade statistics.
Washington, D.C.: IMF.
International Monetary Fund (2001). International financial
statistics, January. Washington, D.C.: IMF.
Kelejian, H.H., & Oates, W.E. (1974). Introductions to econometrics:
Principles and applications. New York: Harper & Row.
KPMG Peat Marwick (1996). A study to assess the economic impact of
tourism on selected CDB borrowing member countries, 1-127, 22
January 2001. Available: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/
external/lac/lac.nsf/c3473659f307761e852567ec0054ee1b/fdf4c4b
a8695ff7b852567f2006ecf6d?OpenDocument.
Mamoozadeh, A. (1989). Cruise ships and small island economies:
Some evidence from the Caribbean region. Dissertation. Kent
State University, Kent, Ohio.
Mamoozadeh, A., & McKee, D.L. (1994). Cruise ships in the Third
World: Development versus corporate financial objectives. In
D.L. McKee (Ed.), External linkages and growth in small
economies (pp. 91-101). Westport, CT: Praeger.
McDonald, J.F. (1997). Fundamentals of urban economics. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
McElroy, J.L., & Tinsely, J.F. (1982). United States Virgin Islands.
In S. Seward & B. Spinrad (Eds), Tourism in the Caribbean: The
economic impact (pp. 23-65). Ottawa: International
Development Research Centre.
McKee, D.L. (1998). Cruise tourism: Assessing its structural and
environmental costs. Caribbean Affairs, 8(1), 135-147.
McKee, D.L. (1988). Some reflections of cruise ships and the economic
development of small island nations. Canadian Journal of
Development Studies, 9(2), 249-59.
Pindyck, R.S., & Rubinfeld, D.L. (1991). Econometric models &
economic forecasts (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2001). Economic contribution of the FCCA
member cruise Lines to the Caribbean and Florida, Florida-
Caribbean Cruise Association, 1-145.
Sinclair, M.T., & Sutcliffe, C.M.S. (1982). Keynesian income
multipliers with first and second round effects: An application to
tourist expenditure. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and
Statistics, 44, 321-338.
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (1996).
Sustainable tourism development in small island developing
states, 18 January 2001. Available: http://www.un.org/
documents/ecosoc/cn17/1996/ecn171996-20a3.htm.
Wise, J. (1999). How cruise ships shortchange the Caribbean; Does
Kathie Lee know about this? Fortune, March, 44, 17 January
2001. Available: http:web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document.
Wood, R. (2000). Caribbean cruise tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 27(2), 345-70.
World Bank (2000). World development indicators: 2000. World Bank,
Washington D.C., (CD-ROM).
World Bank (2000a). Data by topic, 25 April 2001,
http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/class.htm.
World Tourism Organization (1999). Yearbook of tourism statistics,
Vol. I. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization.
World Tourism Organization (1998). What we offer. 23 December
2000. Available: http://www.world-tourism.org/omt/offer.htm.
22 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03You can also read
