Journal of Travel Research

http://jtr.sagepub.com/ Toward a Theoretical Framework of Collaborative Destination Marketing

Youcheng Wang and Zheng Xiang Journal of Travel Research 2007 46: 75 DOI: 10.1177/0047287507302384 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/46/1/75

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/46/1/75.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Aug 3, 2007 What is This?

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at CLEMSON UNIV on August 28, 2013

Toward a Theoretical Framework of Collaborative Destination Marketing

YOUCHENG WANG AND ZHENG XIANG

Marketing a destination has been a challenging task for many communities that rely on tourism for economic development. Collaborative marketing efforts of the tourism organizations representing the destination provide solutions to this challenge. This article develops an integrative theoretical framework in an attempt to explore the nature and dynamism of collaborative marketing efforts at the destination level. Specifically, a model of collaborative marketing is proposed that integrates the preconditions, motivations, processes, and outcomes of destination marketing alliances and networks based upon theories of interorganizational relations. Implications are provided and discussed from both practical and theoretical perspectives. Keywords: Destination marketing; collaboration; alliances; networks

INTRODUCTION
For many years, tourism products in a destination have been marketed and sold in the marketplace in bits and pieces by a variety of individual suppliers (Gunn 1988; Laws 1995). This can largely be attributed to the fragmented nature of tourism destinations, which are represented by stakeholders with diverse business goals but responsible for different components of the total offer (Bramwell and Alletop 2001). However, it has been recognized that destination marketing and promotion, if done individually and independently by various tourism stakeholders, cannot be conducive to developing a holistic image of the destination, thus cannot enable the destination to succeed in the long run (Fyall and Garrod 2004; Grangsjo 2003). In an increasingly competitive marketplace, the ability to create greater levels of awareness of the destination through collaborative efforts provides an important competitive advantage for a destination (Palmer and Bejou 1995). Despite the significance and benefits of collaborative destination marketing, adequate attention has yet been given to this topic, either from a practical or theoretical perspective (Fyall and Garrod 2004; Vernon et al. 2005). The literature on interorganizational relationships and strategic alliances in general and co-marketing alliances and networks in particular, has used different theoretical paradigms to approach the issue, such as resource dependency theory (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978), transaction cost economics (Williamson 1975), strategic management theory (Prahalad and Hamel

1990), and networking theory (Granovetter 1985; Gulati 1998). However, due to the uniqueness of collaborative destination marketing, none of the above commonly used theoretical paradigms can single-handedly explain tourism interorganizational relationships. The structure of the tourism industry and the complexity of destination marketing call for an integrative approach to understand the nature and dynamism of collaborative destination marketing. This article intends to propose a theoretical framework for examining collaborative destination marketing that brings together a diverse range of stakeholders in a concerted effort to market and promote the destination. The article starts with a review of the core theories on interorganizational relations and discusses their applicability within the context of collaborative destination marketing. Then, a theoretical framework using an integrative approach for destination marketing is proposed and elaborated. A series of propositions are then developed to guide further investigation based on the proposed framework. The last section discusses the implications of the framework for destination marketing and directions for future research.

DEFINING INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS

Research on collaboration is often subsumed in the studies on interorganizational relations (Palmer 2002; Ring and Van de Ven 1994). Interorganizational relations have been the subject of scholarly inquiry for many years in the sociological and management science disciplines (Gray 1985). Depending upon the particular questions being addressed, research related to interorganizational relations ranges across

Youcheng Wang, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the Rosen College of Hospitality Management at University of Central Florida in Orlando. His research interests include tourism marketing strategy, destination marketing, and information technology in tourism. Zheng Xiang is a Ph.D. / BA student in National laboratory for tourism and ecommerce in the Fox School of Business and Management and the School of Tourism and Hospitality Management at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. His research interests include management information systems in tourism, Internet marketing strategies, and travelers online behavior.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46, August 2007, 7585 DOI: 10.1177/0047287507302384 2007 Sage Publications

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at CLEMSON UNIV on August 28, 2013

76 AUGUST 2007

three levels of analysis: the organizational level, the interorganizational dyad level, and the interorganizational network level. Accordingly, a number of theoretical paradigms have been developed, among which, resource dependency theory (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978), transaction cost economics (Williamson 1975), strategic management theory (Prahalad and Hamel 1990), and networking theory (Granovetter 1985; Gulati 1998) are the most commonly used ones. Table 1 presents a summary of these major theoretical paradigms. A brief description and critique of each of these theoretical paradigms in relation to their applicability in explaining tourism marketing alliances and networks is provided in the following section.

Resource Dependency Theory

Built on the open systems model of resource acquisition with an added exchange perspective, resource dependency theory suggests that organizations enter partnerships when they perceive critical strategic interdependence with other organizations in their environment (Oliver 1988; Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). According to this theory, interdependence is the most common explanation for the formation of interorganizational cooperative ties. A long stream of research suggests that organizations enter ties with other organizations in response to environmental challenges that require interdependencies (e.g., Burt 1983; Galaskiewicz 1982; Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). In order to pursue their business goals, organizations build cooperative ties to access capabilities and resources that are essential but at least in part under the control of other organizations in their environment. Other things being equal, the higher the interdependence between two organizations, the higher their incentives to combine their resources and capabilities through alliances. However, resource dependency theory has its limitations in explaining the relationships between tourism partners in the context of destination marketing mainly because of two reasons: (1) most literature on resource dependency focuses exclusively on the dyadic relationships between the alliance partners and assumes that the alliance partners are free to choose; and (2) the organizational dyads connections and exchange relationships with other organizations are often ignored when examining the alliance. As a matter of fact, the relationship between tourism organizations in most collaborative destination marketing efforts is usually multiparty, multifacets and is substantially influenced by other ties existing within the web of relationships.

why the transaction cost perspective is limited in its ability to explain tourism interorganizational strategies. First, the standard transaction cost analysis is essentially a singleparty analysis of cost minimization, thus it neglects the interdependencies between exchange partners. As a matter of fact, tourism marketing alliances and networks involve inherently dyadic and multiparty exchanges, and they are not only about cost minimization but also about joint value maximization (Zajac and Olsen 1993). Second, the structural emphasis of transaction cost perspective neglects important process issues resulting from the ongoing nature of interorganizational relationships. However, tourism alliances usually do not take an on-off transaction but rather entail continuing exchanges and adjustments, as a result of which process issues become salient.

Strategic Management Theory

Interorganizational relations have also been examined in the strategic management literature. Strategy is usually defined as the means by which an organization establishes its long-term objectives, action programs, and plans for redistributing resources (Iacobucci and Ostrom 1996). A well-formulated strategy, therefore, enables an organizations resources to be allocated in a single, profitable manner, depending on internal powers, anticipated changes to surroundings, and the contingent movements of opponents. When studying alliances and networks, the strategic management perspective emphasizes the instrumental and rational aspects of the relationship formation process. As such, it can be used to explain why tourism organizations enter into marketing alliances and networks. That is, tourism organizations enter into marketing alliances with the purpose of achieving some well-specified goals, which may include: obtaining access to needed assets; learning new skills beyond firm boundaries; maintaining parity with competitors; exploring economies of scale and scope; and entering new markets. However, much research in this area has focused on the motivational aspects of strategic alliances, and little attention has been given to the dynamic and developmental process of the relationship (Thomas and Trevino 1993). For collaborative tourism marketing, understanding the motivational aspects of an alliance is important, but it is equally important to understand the collaboration process so that more effective management structures can be developed to ensure the success of the alliances.

Network Analysis Approach Transaction Cost Economics

Researchers have sought to use a transaction cost perspective to understand more fully the forms, functions, and effectiveness of interorganizational strategies (e.g., Pisano and Teece 1987). They have generally adopted the transaction cost logic originally developed by Williamson (1975, 1985), who discusses the organization of economic activity as a decision between markets and hierarchies and further extends this logic to encompass interfirm relationships falling between markets and hierarchies. Standard transaction cost logic is seemingly well suited to the study of interorganizational strategies, which are typically viewed as falling in the intermediate state between markets and hierarchies (Joskow 1985). However, there are two main reasons The development and utilization of networks has been a focus of organizational scholars since the 1960s (Gulati 1998). Researchers, often using sophisticated networks analysis techniques, have tried to understand how agencies coordinate and integrate their activities with the emphasis on differences in network structures and governance (Provan and Milward 1995). Network analysis begins with the assumption that actors are embedded in a myriad of social relationships and it is impossible to understand their behavior without understanding the relational context in which they function (Granovetter 1985). Compared with the other approaches, the appeal of network analysis lies in its focus on relational systems as opposed to individual actors. However, several problems arise when network analysis is

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at CLEMSON UNIV on August 28, 2013

TABLE 1 MAJOR THEORETICAL PARADIGMS RELATED TO INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS Main Concepts Strengths Useful for explaining how and why organizations act to protect a commons, or to enhance collective interests Aldrich (1979); Oliver (1988); Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) Authors References Weaknesses Can not address process well; neglects importance of the remaining exchange relationships

Theoretical Paradigms

Analysis Level

Resource dependency theory

Organization or Dyad

Transaction cost theory

Organization or Dyad

To manage power, dependency and uncertainty; to search for resources and capabilities; high stakes and high interdependence as preconditions To minimize transaction costs Williamson (1975, 1985); Hennart (1988); Pisano and Teece (1987) Porter (1985); Prahalad and Hamel (1990); Gulati (1998) The relationship is highly focused and the boundary is clear

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at CLEMSON UNIV on August 28, 2013

Strategic management theory

Organization or Dyad

To search for competitive advantages

Cannot address process well; focus on single party analysis of cost minimization; neglects joint value maximization Cannot address process well; treats the focal organization as the center of theoretical attention and principal actor; no account for commons-protective behaviors, power sharing, or other phenomenon found in collaboration Instrumental and rational aspects of alliance and network formation are powerful explanations for interorganizational relations; good explanations for motivational aspects of strategic alliances Focus on relational systems; interdependence of actors and their actions Too much attention to the structure of ties; difficult to identify boundaries; uncertainty of developmental process

Networking theory

Dyad or networks

Network structure and governance

Wasserman and Faust (1994); Granovetter (1985); Provan and Milward (1995)

77

78 AUGUST 2007

used to study the interorganizational relationships in the tourism context. First, by focusing on the forest instead of the trees, network analysis gives limited attention to the interactions between organizations while emphasizing the structure of ties (Salancik 1995). Second, using the network approach, any relationship has to be analyzed in relation to the whole set of relationships in which each of the partners is engaged. One problem is the identification of the features of such relationships because it is difficult to delineate the boundaries. Third, though it is possible to identify characteristics that can be used to explain the connectedness of the relationships, this approach mainly focuses on the uncertainty of the process. That is, tourism alliances and networks evolve more as a result of what is happening rather than from the businesses initial ambitions and strategic goals. Hence, such an approach is not very useful and powerful in explaining the purposeful marketing alliances and networks of the tourism organizations in a destination.

COLLABORATIVE DESTINATION MARKETING: AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK

The brief review of the different theoretical paradigms (i.e., resource dependency theory, transaction cost theory, strategic management theory, and networking theory) suggests that none of them can individually provide a comprehensive theoretical foundation for understanding tourism marketing alliances and networks within a destination. It is posited that an integrative approach should be used to explain tourism organizations behavior in forming marketing alliances and networks. Following Wood and Gray (1991), a conceptual framework is developed to extend the theory of collaboration to collaborative destination marketing and guide the research centered on the key issues related to its formation process (see Figure 1). This conceptual framework is defined by four major constructs with the emphasis on the nature and dynamics of collaborative destination marketing. These include: (1) the precondition construct, which delineates the economic, social, and environmental conditions for alliance and network formation; (2) the motivation construct, which explains why organizations choose to enter into strategic alliances and networks to achieve their specific goals; (3) the process construct, which captures the dynamics of collaborative marketing processes, consisting of major issues such as stages, forms, governance mode, and conflict management; and (4) the outcome construct, which describes the consequences of the collaborative marketing activities. The following sections elaborate on the conceptual framework and develop propositions to guide further investigation into the issue.

and their collaborative behaviors are influenced and shaped by environmental forces, which set the preconditions for organizations to enter into collaboration relationships. As summarized by Selin and Chavez (1995) and Waddock (1989), research has identified several major environmental forces or pressures that impact the interactions between potential partners. Some of the commonly mentioned forces include: (1) crises, which direct the efforts of potential partners toward a specific problem (Fosler and Berger 1982); (2) existing networks, which introduce members of a potential partnership to each other and direct their attention to the issues on which they may be mutually dependent or perceive desired benefits (Mintz and Schwartz 1981; Useem 1984); (3) visionary leadership, which is embodied in an individual as opposed to a group, but is often necessary to get the partnership moving or to convene the initial meeting (Gray 1989; Selin and Chavez 1995); (4) economic and technological change in which individual organizations are not able to compete successfully by acting alone (Frazier, Spekman, and ONeil 1988); and (5) the existence of third party convener, such as convention and visitors bureaus and other destination marketing organizations, which provide a forum or create opportunity for interaction (Trist 1983). Based upon the literature the following proposition is formulated: Proposition 1: Environmental forces (i.e., social, economic, organizational and technological) will influence the decisions by tourism organizations to collaborate with each other.

Motivation for Entering Marketing Alliances

Organizations and businesses enter into collaborative relationships with different motivations, ranging from social to economic to strategic. These motivations can be classified into three broad categories: strategy oriented, transaction cost oriented, and learning oriented. Accordingly, different approaches have been developed to study these motivations. As recognized by Kogut (1988), these theoretical approaches are particularly appropriate to explain the choice and motivations of alliance formation. First, the strategic behavior approach (Bleeke and Ernst 1993; Ohmae 1989) focuses on the consequences for the competitive positioning of the organization. According to this view, the formation of interorganizational linkages can be explained as the strategic or resource needs of organizations (Hagedoorn and Schakenraad 1994; Hamel 1991; Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). Second, from the transaction cost perspective, organizations entering into alliances and networks are driven by the need for efficiency with the emphasis on providing incentives for efficient transactions and economizing on transaction costs (Williamson 1975, 1985). Last, the organizational learning perspective focuses on the ability of organizations to extract new knowledge and skills or to protect core competences from competitors (Baum, Calabrese, and Silverman 2000; Dredge 2006; Hamel 1991; Hamel, Doz, and Prahalad 1989; Hennart 1988; Parkhe 1993; Saxena 2005). According to Pearce (1989), tourism organizations are set up to achieve goals when these goals are best met by combined activities based on the participants working within a formal structure. Bramwell and Rawding (1994) argue that certain characteristics of the tourism industry may provide encouragement to the formation of interorganizational relationships, such as the interdependence of a wide

Preconditions for Marketing Alliances

In strategic management, it is generally accepted that organizations must adapt to their environments in order to survive and prosper. Following Duncan (1972), the environment can be defined as the relevant physical and social factors outside the boundary of an organization that are taken into consideration during organizational decision making. As such, organizations do not form alliances in a vacuum

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at CLEMSON UNIV on August 28, 2013

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 79 FIGURE 1 A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR DESTINATION MARKETING ALLIANCE FORMATION

range of goods and services comprising the tourism product, the small scale of many individual operators as well as the spatial separation of the destination area from where the tourist lives. They also argue that the primary motivations behind the participants being involved in an alliance may vary, ranging from economic, strategic, social, and learning objectives (Bramwell and Rawding 1994). In particular, the destination as a whole and the tourism organizations involved can only gain a competitive advantage by bringing together the knowledge, expertise, capital, and other resources (Pearce 1992). It is increasingly difficult for individual tourism organizations to make decisions unilaterally without taking other tourism organizations interests into account. In addition, increased competitive pressures have prompted collaboration between tourism organizations trying to gain access to new assets, markets, and technologies or spread the cost of marketing innovation over several parties (Selin 1993), which can eventually improve their strategic positions in the marketplace. Proposition 2: Tourism organizations in a destination entering into marketing alliances are driven by the following motivations: strategy oriented, transaction cost oriented, and organizational learning oriented.

formation, the governance mode adopted at each of the stages, the forms taken by the marketing alliances, and how conflicts are managed.

Stages of Marketing Alliance Formation

Collaboration can be defined as a process of shared decision making among key stakeholders of a problem domain about the future of that domain (Gray 1985). Within the tourism domain, this involves joint decision making among all those parties having an interest or stake in tourism destination marketing. A number of studies have been conducted to model the collaborative processes in different disciplines. For example, Waddock (1989) argued that three concurrent processes can be identified at the start of a partnership: issue crystallization, coalition building, and purpose formulation. They are continuous processes that are interactive and constantly influence the strategic thrust and pragmatic developments of the partnership. Similarly, McCann (1983) observed that collaboration develops through a natural process consisting of three sequential phases: problemsetting, direction-setting, and structuring. Selin and Chavez (1995) also used the same three phases to describe the evolutionary process in tourism planning. A more recent attempt by Bailey and Koney (2000) outlined four phases to describe the developmental process of strategic alliances. There are several limitations in these studies. First, the existence of different terminologies suggests that there is little consensus in the understanding of the collaboration process. Second, these terminologies and their elaborations only reflect the fragmented and discrete aspects of the collaboration stages at best, thus there is a lack of understanding of the whole process from the beginning to the end. In addition, these studies have embraced a static and linear approach in studying the collaboration process. In reality, collaboration stages do not necessarily manifest a sequential order; instead, they are embedded in a dynamic and cyclical

Process of Marketing Alliance Formation

Building an alliance relationship is important, and as equally important is an understanding of the processes by which those relationships can be nurtured and managed. Researchers attempt to develop and employ paradigms and tools to investigate the emerging organization alliance relationships in an attempt to better understand how alliances develop over time and what requisite skills are needed to manage these relationships as they evolve (Iacobucci and Hopkins 1992). The following discussion addresses a number of key issues involved in the process of marketing alliance formation including the stages involved in alliance

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at CLEMSON UNIV on August 28, 2013

80 AUGUST 2007

process whereby cooperation, conflict, and compromise coexist, and various governance structures are negotiated to ensure that the whole collaboration process is smooth and successful. As such, it is proposed that there are five stages in the collaboration process: (1) the assembling stage; (2) the ordering stage; (3) the implementation stage; (4) the evaluation stage; and (5) the transformation stage. The assembling stage describes a process of issue identification and partner selection so that understanding can be built around it (Bailey and Koney 2000; McCann 1983). First, it is concerned with identifying and mutually acknowledging the key issues within a problem domain among the potential partners (Gray 1985). It is important at this stage that a consensus is reached about what the joint issue is, who has a legitimate stake in the issue, and whether the parties involved have a common problem definition. At the same time, the initiation of the collaboration will depend on the level of their perceived benefits and the perceived salience of the problem (Selin and Chavez 1995). Second, the initiation of collaborative relationships requires the selection of partners, which includes recognition of interdependence, domain consensus, goal similarity, partner fit, and mutual trust (Selin and Chavez 1995). These factors influence the formation and operation of tourism marketing alliances in different ways. For example, interdependence requires destination organizations to draw together different sectors of the tourism industry for the goal of effective destinationmarketing (Pearce 1989; Selin and Beason 1991). Interdependence also generates a need to coordinate the different sectors to ensure that they function harmoniously. Interdependence, small size, market fragmentation, and spatial separation are all factors that may lead to a desire for combined actions, a willingness to unite to achieve common goals, and a need to form collaborative alliances (Jamal and Getz 1995; Murphy 1985; Pearce 1992). The assembling stage gives way to the ordering stage where ideas identified in the previous stage are streamlined and sorted through, and efforts are made to arrive at a shared vision among all the parties involved so that appropriate actions can be taken (Bailey and Koney 2000; Selin and Chavez 1995). The purpose of the ordering stage is to align all the resources available and make sure that everything is working toward the success of the collaborative project. At this stage of collaboration, stakeholders share interpretations about the future of the project and begin to foster and appreciate a sense of common purpose (McCann 1983). At the same time they establish specific goals to achieve, set rules and agenda for realizing the goals, collect and share information, explore and compare options and alternatives, and select viable solutions. According to Wood and Gray (1991), collaboration occurs when a group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures, to act or decide on issues related to that domain. Stakeholders are autonomous in that they retain independent decision-making powers even when they agree to work with each other within a framework of rules or other expectations. Wood and Grays definition suggests that participants must work together with at least the intention to develop a mutual orientation in response to an issue, for example, to determine direction, organization and action. Most important, an effort aimed at fostering a shared vision and breaking down any existing stereotypes or lack of trust among participants is

often needed to ensure a successful collaboration (Waddock 1989). This is because the collaborative marketing process brings together various types of tourism organizations (both private and public) that have different ideologies and values (Rainey 1983). Such differences may upset the equilibrium of the collaborative effort if they are not reconciled (Waddock 1989). In addition, strongly held stereotypes, which inhibit productive interactions, may exist in the collaboration process (Gray 1985). The implementation stage is introduced after the first two preparation stages where ideas and thoughts are put into action, and plans and strategies are operationalized. In this stage, parties involved reassess the costs and benefits of the project and assign roles among partners so that everybody is clear about their responsibility. In order to ensure the success of these activities, a suitable structure and effective means of communication are required. For example, Selin (1993) noted that, for collaboration to succeed and persist over time, there is a need to manage stakeholder interactions in a systematic manner through establishing the structure for the implementation of the collaborative activities. This is because collaborative relationships are dynamic and collaborative marketing activities must take into account not only the common wishes of all stakeholders but also divergent views resulting from each individual stakeholders own business strategies. Thus, the structure is used to ensure that all stakeholders ascribe to shared meanings and coordinate each individual stakeholder in terms of its roles and responsibilities in the network of relationships. Further, mutual communication is also critical for successful collaboration in the tourism industry. An accurate reading of the environment, especially of the availability of exchange partners and the goodness of fit between the organizations involved, greatly depends upon the quality and frequency of mutual communication (Selin and Chavez 1995). Following Bailey and Koney (2000), it is posited that, as the alliance moves into the implementation stage, the alliance leaders and members must understand clearly the costs and benefits of membership, their new roles, and how they fit into the larger context, through effective ways of communication. Evaluation is another important stage in the collaboration process for most of the tourism organizations involved, especially the leading organizations. Evaluation takes a retrospective perspective and assesses whether the predefined goals and objectives have been achieved (Gray 1989). The evaluation stage involves a number of activities such as reviewing individual projects and making decisions with respect to continuing the current projects, revising the project plans, planning and executing other similar projects, and ensuring accountability in operations. What is vital is to draw lessons and produce recommendations through analyses of the factors affecting the project results and utilize them for improvements in the process. Various measures can be taken to serve the evaluation purposes, such as assessing predefined goals, revisiting business plans, evaluating predefined objectives, documentation, checking against expectations, informal follow-ups, and benchmarking against previous projects (Borden 1997; Gray 1989). In the transformation stage, members in an alliance determine the future direction of their relationships at some point in the life cycle of a tourism collaborative marketing project. The transformation stage was generally precipitated by a specific event or guidance, such as the accomplishment

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at CLEMSON UNIV on August 28, 2013

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 81

of the alliances initial goal or the end of the initial term set for the marketing alliances work (Bailey and Koney 2000). It is conceivable that during the transformation stage, participants will usually revisit the salient issues at each of the previous stages, including their commitment to the alliance, and determine if and how the alliance should proceed. That is, the individual tourism stakeholders will assess whether the marketing alliances purpose and activities are still consistent with their own goals and resources. Characterized by change and reflection, tourism stakeholders informally and formally use the evaluation system established earlier to review the effectiveness of the marketing alliance as it moves through the transformation stage and make decisions about their next move (Bailey and Koney 2000). It is suggested that the transformation stage may offer several possibilities for the future direction of the tourism marketing alliance: the alliance may become stronger; the alliance may generate more projects; the alliance may continue unchanged; the alliance may formally end. It should be noted that not all collaborations proceed through these stages in sequence. In other words, the collaboration stages are not necessarily separate and distinct in practice. Overlapping and recycling back to earlier issues that are not addressed may be necessary, particularly if leadership is conflicted or third party facilitation is absent (Bailey and Koney 2000). For example, issues in the assembling stage may continually appear during the ordering stage. Failure to address adequately a critical issue in a certain stage can severely hamper the success of the collaborative efforts (Selin and Chavez 1995). Proposition 3: The tourism marketing collaboration process is dynamic and cyclical and usually contains five stages: (1) the assembling stage, (2) the ordering stage, (3) the implementation stage, (4) the evaluation stage, and (5) the transformation stage.

Forms of Tourism Marketing Alliances

A useful approach to studying the dynamism of the tourism collaboration process is to examine the forms the alliance takes (Terpstra and Simonin 1993). When organizations begin to consider participating in strategic alliances, they have many structural and process alternatives from which to choose, ranging from loosely connected alliances to those that are very formal and integrated (Bailey and Koney 2000). However, one challenge in capturing alliance forms is the inconsistent and interchangeable use of the terms to describe interorganizational relationships, such as cooperation, coordination, and collaboration (Bailey and Koney 2000). It is also suggested that there could be a continuum of interactions in the processes of creating and sustaining strategic alliances, moving from cooperation to coordination to collaboration. Within the tourism context, it is argued that different relationships with various degrees of formalization, integration, and structural complexity exist, oftentimes determined by the nature of the project and the mission to be fulfilled. For example, some projects require a more formal and closer relationship than others. As such, when the relationships among the tourism industry, especially among the small tourism businesses, are examined, these concepts (i.e., cooperation, coordination, and collaboration) could be inadequate or insufficient to describe the whole set of existing relationships.

Inspired by Bailey and Koney (2000), it is proposed that the collaborative marketing relationships among the tourism organizations in a destination can be described using five types arranged in a continuum based on the level of formality, integration, and structural complexity. They are: (1) affiliation, (2) cooperation, (3) coordination, (4) collaboration, and (5) strategic networks. In affiliation, two or more tourism organizations loosely connect with each other, usually informally, because of their similar interest or interests. In cooperation, fully autonomous tourism organizations share information to support each others organizational activities. In coordination, otherwise autonomous tourism organizations align activities, sponsor particular event, or deliver targeted services in pursuit of compatible goals. In collaboration, parties work collectively through common strategies; each will relinquish some degree of autonomy toward the realization of a jointly determined purpose. Last, in strategic networks, all the tourism organizations involved in the network have a shared vision and use a system orientation to achieve group objectives through consistent strategy and concerted efforts. Affiliation, cooperation, coordination, collaboration, and strategic networks describe the modalities in which tourism alliances function. They can be used to capture and clarify the extent to which tourism organizations work together to achieve their goals and describe interorganizational activities among the tourism industry. It is important to emphasize that each of these five forms is appropriate for particular circumstances depending on the degree to which trust is nurtured, the amount of time allocated for the project, and the extent to which the commitments to share power and responsible, accountable actions are agreed upon (Bailey and Koney 2000). In addition, it must be noted that while the continuum of interorganizational alliance moves from affiliation to strategic networks, it also moves from a low degree to a high degree of organizational integration. In other words, members in tourism marketing alliances are more interdependent as they seek to achieve their goals through strategic networks than are members in the other four forms of alliances. Proposition 4: Collaborative marketing relationships among tourism organizations in a destination can be placed in a continuum of affiliation, cooperation, coordination, collaboration, and strategic networks depending upon the levels of formality, integration, and structural complexity. Affiliation represents the lowest, while strategic networks represent the highest level of formality, integration, and structural complexity along the continuum.

Governance Mode within Marketing Alliances

The governance mode/structure reflects the forms of the social coordination within the alliance and the way governance is achieved through multiorganizational partnerships (Rhodes 1997). Attempts to differentiate modes of governance often have their intellectual roots in Williamsons (1985) analysis of markets and hierarchies as distinct governance structures associated with particular transaction costs on actors. Subsequent research has added a third category to Williamsons formulation: networks. While other forms also exist, these three modes of governancemarkets, hierarchies, and networksemerge more dominantly in the literature (Thompson et al. 1991).

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at CLEMSON UNIV on August 28, 2013

82 AUGUST 2007

A market mode of governance revolves around contractual relationships. Markets provide a high degree of flexibility to actors in determining their willingness to form alliances (Williamson 1985). Essentially, actors prefer to be independent and will choose to collaborate only when they see particular advantages for themselves. The hierarchical mode of governance overcomes the problems of coordination and collaboration found in the market place. The imposition of an authoritative or a supervisory structure enables bureaucratic routines to be established. Coordination can be undertaken by administrative fiat, power, and influence in the relationships. The network mode of governance arises from a view that actors are able to identify complementary interests. The development of interdependent relationships based on trust, loyalty, and reciprocity enables collaborative activity to be developed and maintained. Being voluntary, networks maintain the loyalty of members over the long term. Conflicts are resolved within the network on the basis of members reputation concerns (Heide 1994; Williamson 1985). In the tourism context, multiorganizational alliances are an important means of governing and managing destination marketing issues. The key challenge for an alliance lies in managing the interaction of different modes of governance that might create mechanisms for competition or collaboration. It is posited that each of the five stages of alliance development has key features in terms of the predominant mode of governance and relationships between stakeholders. In the assembling stage, the governance is characterized by a network mode based upon informality, trust, and a sense of common purpose. The ordering stage is characterized by hierarchy based upon an assertion of status and authority differentials and the formalization of procedures. The implementation stage is characterized by a marketlike governance mode as a means to maintain organization commitment and involvement. The market governance mode dominates the evaluation stage when the analysis is mainly based on a cost-and-benefit mechanism. Last, the transformation stage is characterized by a reassertion of a network governance mode as a mechanism of keeping the communication open for future potential collaborative projects. It should be pointed out that this classification of the governance modes at the different stages is not rigid but dynamic. For example, though the assembling stage is characterized by network forms of social coordination, other modes of governance may be important as well. Hierarchies based on resources, information, and status differentials superimposed on network relationships, lead to the formation of inner and outer networks and the exclusion or marginalization of some potential partners. Marketlike cost-benefit calculations are also important for individual tourism organizations in deciding whether to invest in potential partnership opportunities. In addition, these different modes of governance may overlap and coexist throughout an alliances life cycle. The balance and tension between different modes shift as the agenda for action and the relationships between partners change. However, it should be argued that the network mode of governance will have a continuing importance in the substructure of successful partnerships. Proposition 5: Each of the five stages of marketing alliance formation is dominated by one of the following modes of governance: market, hierarchy, and networks, with

networks serving as the supporting mode of governance at all stages of marketing alliance formation.

Conflict Management within Marketing Alliances

The collaboration process will not remain fixed throughout a collaborative relationship. From a developmental process perspective, collaborative relationships are socially contrived mechanisms for collective action. As such, they are continually shaped and restructured by actions and symbolic interpretations of the parties involved (Grandori and Soda 1995). The development and evolution of a collaborative relationship should be viewed as consisting of a repetitive sequence of cooperation, conflict, and compromise mechanisms, each of which is interdependent but has its own focus of consideration and activities. For example, in the cooperation mode, the parties develop joint expectations about possible investments and perceived uncertainties of a business opportunity that they are exploring jointly. In this process, conflicts might arise between the parties when they try to seek agreements on the obligations and rules for future action in the relationship. Eventually, all the parties have to adapt to the real situation and compromise from time to time so that commitment and rules of action can be carried into effect for the successful implementation of the collaborative efforts. This is an ongoing loop transcending all the collaborative processes, since with time, misunderstandings, conflicts, and changing expectations among the parties are inevitable, and these factors can provide cause for rethinking the terms of the relationships as a whole or some of the strategies in the process in particular (Khanna, Gulati, and Nohria 1998). Other dynamics related to conflict management include how to balance the relationship between benefits to the individual businesses and those to the destination as a whole, as well as the relationship between cooperation and competition. It is quite natural that individual businesses entering an alliance will always put their businesses benefits and interests first, oftentimes at the expense of the common benefits to the destination as a whole (Hamel, Doz, and Prahald 1989). However, this can only happen to a certain extent since, if the destination as a whole cannot create a big enough pie, then the individual businesses should not expect to get a decent slice for themselves. This analogy is equally true when it comes to the relationship between cooperation and competition (Teece 1992). For their own benefits and interests, individual businesses will compete against each other for customers, but they need to cooperate with each other in the first place in order to attract a large pool of visitors to the destination before utilizing a competitive strategy. Researchers recommend formal and well-established procedures for resolving conflicts and preventing divorce between the partners (Doz 1996; Gulati 1998). Formal procedures force partners to stick to the terms and conditions of the agreement. However, it can be argued that most of the conflicts, within the tourism context, are handled and resolved in a rather informal way, usually following a progression of cooperationconflictcompromise trajectory. In the whole process, trust becomes a critical element in the relationships between the alliance partners because trust will increase the partners tolerance for each others behavior and help to avoid conflicts. Trust between alliance partners

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at CLEMSON UNIV on August 28, 2013

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 83

usually leads to an informal resolution of conflicts (Granovetter 1985; Hamel 1991; Parkhe 1993). Proposition 6: Conflicts are present among tourism organizations throughout their collaborative marketing activities. These conflicts are reflected mainly by their efforts to make a balance between their individual organizations benefits and the common benefits to the entire destination, as well as their resultant strategies of cooperation versus competition. The resolution of conflicts generally follows a cooperationconflictcompromise trajectory.

Outcomes of Marketing Alliance

Collaboration inevitably leads to outcomes that are usually multifaceted and contingent upon the context in which the collaboration takes place. There are three broad categories of outcomes resulting from collaborative marketing: strategy realization, organizational learning, and social capital building. First, the realization of strategy is directly reflected in tourism organizations enhanced competitive advantage through collaboration. Within the destination context, the enhanced competitive advantage may include sharing marketing cost, effective use of pooled resources, increased destination competitiveness, competitive branding and image building, and improved product portfolio (Gunn 1988; Jamal and Getz 1995; Pearce 1992; Selin 1993; Selin and Chavez 1995). The second category of collaboration outcome is related to organization learning. Collaboration essentially can be characterized as a joint learning experience (Doz 1988) and a vehicle by which firms transfer knowledge (Kogut 1988). Through collaboration, organizations purposefully acquire knowledge to increase their competences (Hagedoorn 1993). Within the tourism context, collaborative destination marketing involves a range of stakeholders, who may bring their knowledge, expertise, and other capacities to the collaborative marketing efforts which, in turn, will introduce change, improvement, and innovation through the interaction process (Anand and Khanna 2000; Kale, Singh, and Perlmutter 2000). In other words, organizational learning related outcomes for tourism organizations are manifested in knowledge transfer, organization change and innovation, and improvement in various types of skills required for collaboration, such as people skills, communication skills, and problem solving skills. The third category of collaboration outcome is social capital building. Social capital refers to the resources available in and through personal and business networks (Granovetter 1985). These resources include information, ideas, leads, business opportunities, power and influence, emotional support, good will, trust, and the spirit of cooperation. The notion of social capital suggests that these resources reside in networks of relationships (Burt 1997). In other words, if human capital can be understood as what one knows (the sum of ones own knowledge, skills, and experience), then access to social capital depends on who one knowsthe size, quality, and diversity of ones personal and business networks (Granovetter 1985). Social capital built through collaborative destination marketing mainly lies in the benefits of relationships and trust established among the various sectors of the tourism industry as well as individual organizations in the destination, which may be harnessed as high quality information, future project opportunities, and the

spirit of collaboration within the destination. Social capital, like human capital or financial capital, is productive: it enables network partners to create value, get things done, achieve their goals, fulfill their missions, and make the destination more competitive. At the destination level, to say that social capital is productive is an understatement; no one can be successfulor even survivewithout the interconnected relationships among the various tourism businesses. Proposition 7: Collaborative marketing efforts in a destination generate specific outcomes for tourism organizations involved, and the results can be reflected in three major areas: (1) strategy realization, (2) organization learning, and (3) social capital building.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Marketing alliances and networks are voluntary arrangements between organizations involved in marketing and promoting products and services in a collective way. They occur as a result of a wide range of motivations, take a variety of forms, and function across vertical and horizontal boundaries (Grangsjo 2003). Studies on interorganizational collaboration in tourism appear to be particularly relevant at a time when partnership arrangements have proved to provide solutions to marketing and promoting tourism products in destinations. In addition, tourism as a social and economic system is ideally suited to the development of partnership given the range and diversity of organizational and community interests and involvement (Gunn 1988; Pearce 1989). It is, therefore, surprising that theories of interorganizational collaboration and partnership have received little attention in the tourism literature and, in particular, the nature and dynamics of collaborative marketing in a destination has yet been explored in a comprehensive way (Fyall and Garrod 2004). This study has attempted, in part, to fill a gap in the literature by proposing a theoretical framework of collaborative destination marketing that delineates a number of important issues related to the formation process of tourism marketing alliances within a destination. In this framework, collaborative destination marketing is conceptualized as a product of external forces presented to organizations in a destination. These forces serve as the preconditions for marketing alliance development. In delineating alliance formation, it is argued that the motivation of tourism organizations entering marketing alliances can be explained from three broad perspectives: strategic oriented, transaction cost oriented, and organization learning oriented. It is further proposed that tourism marketing alliances go through five distinctive developmental phases: (1) assembling the member organizations; (2) ordering the alliance; (3) implementing the tasks; (4) evaluating the results; and (5) transforming the alliance. The evolutionary, dynamic nature of collaborative marketing is captured in the descriptions of its modalities, governance structures, and conflict management issues. Finally, it is suggested that collaborative destination marketing produces three major outcomes: strategy realization, organizational learning, and social capital building. This framework offers important theoretical implications for tourism research as well as practical guidance for marketing alliance development in the tourism context. First, this study represents a valuable attempt to expand the framework for research on destination marketing. That

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at CLEMSON UNIV on August 28, 2013

84 AUGUST 2007

is, conventional research in destination marketing usually focuses on developing tools and techniques to understand and approach consumer markets, which is reflected in a plethora of studies on market segmentation. From a marketing strategy point of view, such an approach places the emphasis on the external environments for tourism destinations. While these studies have identified and developed useful means by which tourism organizations can utilize when marketing and promoting their destinations to potential visitors, how to improve the marketing efforts through enhancing tourism organizations capacity and capability has rarely been fully examined (Palmer and Bejou 1995). Essentially, destination marketing is a collective effort that requires various organizations and businesses to harmoniously work together to achieve a common goal. As such, successful destination marketing entails a profound understanding of the critical aspects in the collaboration process. By providing a comprehensive and integrated view of the collaborative process, this study demonstrates an important, although preliminary, step toward a research theme focusing on capacity and competence building for tourism organizations and destinations within a marketing context. Second, this study also contributes to the study on tourism-specific partnerships and networks. Building partnerships and networks in tourism destinations has become an increasingly important management strategy in response to the escalating environmental pressures (Palmer and Bejou 1995; Selin and Chavez 1995). However, research efforts directed toward a theoretical understanding of this issue is rare, perhaps due to the fact that partnerships and networks are highly complex social, economic, and, sometimes political arrangements in tourism destinations. Applying a single approach to studying this issue, therefore, cannot produce fruitful and meaningful results. Compared to previous research, this study constructs a comprehensive view of tourism collaborations through synthesizing and integrating multiple theoretical perspectives. While the primary goal of the study is to describe and explain the formation process of destination marketing collaborations, the proposed framework can also serve as a theoretical foundation for understanding other types of partnerships and networks in tourism destinations. This study also offers practical implications for managers in destination organizations. The fragmented nature of the tourism industry and interdependencies among different businesses and sectors provide numerous opportunities for building collaborative relationships. The ultimate goal of collaboration is to facilitate the creation of innovative products and services as well as management approaches in order to establish and enhance destination competitive advantage. Building partnerships and networks is a viable, but also indispensable, tool for organizations to improve their competence. Thus, it is important for them to gain a better understanding of the issues related to partnerships and networks. First, this study suggests that taking the initiative to establish certain relationships with other organizations only serves as the first step in the longterm, dynamic process. How to orchestrate this process and make these relationships enduring and conducive to the common goal is even more critical. Second, partners entering the collaborative relationships with different interests, goals, and motivations oftentimes lead to conflicts. While certain governance structures are useful for establishing rules, norms, and disciplines,

partnerships within the tourism setting largely hinge on mutual understanding and trust. Last, this study suggests that strategy realization can be understood as the short-term outcome of collaboration. From a long-term perspective, it must be recognized that knowledge sharing, idea generation, and social capital accumulation are as equally important in the collaborative relationships. Although this study established a foundation for research on collaborative destination marketing, a number of considerations must be given to guide further investigation. First, further research supported by both qualitative and quantitative data is required to confirm or challenge the various aspects of the framework. This might be achieved by applying the framework at different destinations with different market structures in order to refine existing categories and dimensions, and by examining in detail the situational characteristics and dynamics in the perceptions of the tourism industry. Second, although the present study provides conceptual themes as to the benefits of participating in marketing alliances, quantitative indicators associated with different benefits may provide more tangible incentives for tourism businesses to participate in marketing alliances. Third, it must be recognized that marketing alliances are only one part of the broadly defined tourism system and other social or economic networks also exist in a destination. It is important to understand the relationships between marketing alliances and other networks, especially with respect to issues related to their cooperation and competition. Last, there is a need for longitudinal and case study research examining the internal processes of interorganizational partnerships.

REFERENCES
Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and Environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Anand, B. N., and T. Khanna (2000). Do Firms Learn to Create Value? The Case of Alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 295315. Bailey, D., and K. M. Koney (2000). Strategic Alliances among Health and Human Services Organizations. London: Sage Publications. Baum, J. A., T. Calabrese, and B. S. Silverman (2000). Dont Go It Alone: Alliance Network Composition and Startups Performance in Canadian Biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 267294. Bleeke, J., and D. Ernst (1993). Collaborating to Compete. New York: John Wiley. Borden, L. M. (1997). Community Collaboration: When the Whole is Greater than the Sum of Parts. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. Bramwell, B., and L. Alletop (2001). Attitudes in the Danish Tourism Industry to the Roles of Business and Government in Sustainable Tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3: 91103. Bramwell, B., and L. Rawding (1994). Tourism Marketing Organizations in Industrial Cities: Organizations, Objectives and Urban Governance. Tourism Management, 15 (6): 425434. Burt, R. S. (1983). Corporate Profits and Co-optation: Networks of Market Constraints and Directorate Ties in the American Economy. New York: Academic. (1997). The Contingent Value of Social Capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 339365. Doz, Y. (1988). Technology Partnerships Between Larger and Smaller Firms: Some Critical Issues. International Studies of Management and Organization, 17 (4): 3157. . (1996). The Evolution of Cooperation in Strategic Alliances: Initial Conditions or Learning Processes? Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Summer Special Issue): 5583. Dredge, D. (2006). Policy Networks and the Local Organization of Tourism. Tourism Management, 27: 269280. Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 313327. Fosler, R., and R. Berger (1982). Public-Private Sector Partnership in American Cities: Seven Case Studies. Lexington, KY: Heath.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at CLEMSON UNIV on August 28, 2013

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 85

Frazier, G., R. Spekman, and C. ONeil (1988). Just-In Time Exchange Relationships in Industrial Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 52 (3): 5267. Fyall, A., and B. Garrod (2004). Tourism Marketing: A Collaborative Approach. Cleveland, OH: Channel View Publications. Galaskiewicz, J. (1982). Networks of Control and Resource Allocation: Corporate Contributions to Nonprofit Organizations. In Social Structure and Network Analysis, edited by P. V. Marsden and N. Lin. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication, pp. 235253. Grandori, A., and G. Soda (1995). Inter-Firm Networks: Antecedents, Mechanisms and Forms. Organizational Studies, 16 (2): 183214. Grangsjo, Y. (2003). Destination Networking: Co-Opetition in Peripheral Surroundings. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 33 (5): 427448. Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481510. Gray, B. (1985). Conditions Facilitating Interorganizational Relations. Human Relations, 38 (10): 911936. (1989). Collaborating. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and Networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19 (4): 293317. Gunn, C. A. (1988). Vacationscape: Designing Tourism Regions. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the Rationale of Strategic Technology Partnering: Interorganizational Modes of Cooperation and Sectoral Differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (5): 371385. Hagedoorn, J., and J. Schakenraad (1994). The Effect of Strategic Technology Alliances on Company Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 291309. Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for Competence and Inter-partner Learning within International Strategic Alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Summer Special Issue): 83103. Hamel, G., Y. L. Doz, and C. K. Prahalad (1989). Collaborate with Your Competitors and Win. Harvard Business Review, 67 (1): 133139. Heide, J. B. (1994). Interorganizational Governance in Marketing Channels. Journal of Marketing, 58 (April): 7185. Hennart, J. F. (1988). A Transaction Costs Theory of Equity Joint Ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 9 (4): 361374. Iacobucci, D., and P. R. Hopkins (1992). Modeling Dynamic Interactions and Networks in Marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (February): 517. Iacobucci, D., and A. Ostrom (1996). Commercial and Interpersonal Relationships: Using the Structure of Interpersonal Relationships to Understand Individual-to-Individual, Individual-to-Firm, and Firmto-Form Relationships in Commerce. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13: 5372. Jamal, T. B., and D. Getz (1995). Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22: 186204. Joskow, P. L. (1985). Long Term Relationships and the Study of Industrial Organization and Government Regulation. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 141: 586593. Kale, P., H. Singh, and H. Perlmutter (2000). Learning and Protection of Proprietary Assets in Strategic Alliances: Building Relational Capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 217237. Khanna, T., R. Gulati, and N. Nohria (1998). The Dynamics of Learning Alliances: Competition, Cooperation and Relative Scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19 (3): 193210. Kogut, B. (1988). Joint Ventures: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9 (4): 319332. Laws, E. (1995). Tourism Destination Management: Issues, Analysis and Policies. New York: Routledge. McCann, J. (1983). Design Guidelines for Social Problem-Solving Interventions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19: 177189. Mintz, B., and M. Schwartz (1981). Interlocking Directorates and Interest Group Formation. American Sociological Review, 46: 851869. Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen. Ohmae, K. (1989). The Global Logic of Strategic Alliances. Harvard Business Review, 67 (March-April): 143154. Oliver, C. (1988). The Collective Strategy Framework: An Application to Competing Preconditions of Isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: 543561. Palmer, A. (2002). Cooperative Marketing Association: An Investigation into the Causes of Effectiveness. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 10 (2): 135156. Palmer, A., and D. Bejou (1995). Tourism Destination Marketing Alliances. Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (3): 616629. Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic Alliance Structuring: A Game Theoretic Examination of Interfirm Cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (4): 794829. Pearce, D. (1989). Tourist Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1992). Tourist Organizations. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman. Pfeffer, J., and J. Salancik (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource-Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper and Row. Pisano, G., and D. Teece (1987). Collaborative Arrangements and Global Technology Strategy: Some Evidence from the Telecommunications Equipment Industry. In Research on Technological Innovation, Management, and Policy, edited by R. Rosenbloom and R. Burgelman. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: The Free Press. Prahalad, C. K., and G. G. Hamel (1990). The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68 (3): 7991. Provan, K. G., and H. B. Milward (1995). A Preliminary Theory of Network Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (2): 200225. Rainey, H. G. (1983). Public Agencies and Private Firms: Incentives Structures, Goals, and Individual Roles. Administration & Society, 15 (2): 207242. Rhodes, R. (1997). Understanding Governance. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Ring, P. S., and A. H. Van de Ven (1994). Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19 (1): 90118. Salancik, G. R. (1995). Wanted: A Good Network Theory of Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 345349. Saxena, G. (2005). Relationships, Networks and the Learning Regions: Case Evidence from the Peak District National Park. Tourism Management, 26 (2): 277289. Selin, S. (1993). Collaborative Alliances: New Interorganizational Forms in Tourism. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2 (23): 217227. Selin, S., and K. Beason (1991). Interorganizational Relations in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18 (4): 639652. Selin, S., and D. Chavez (1995). Developing a Evolutionary Tourism Partnership Model. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4): 844856. Teece, D. J. (1992). Competition, Cooperation and Innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 18: 125. Terpstra, V., and B. Simonin (1993). Strategic Alliances in the Triad. Journal of International Marketing, 1: 425. Thomas, J. B., and L. K. Trevino (1993). Information Processing in Strategic Alliances: A Multiple Case Approach. Journal of Management Studies, 30: 779814. Thompson, G., J. Frances, R. Levacic, and J. Mitchell (1991). Marketing, Hierarchies and Networks. London: Sage Publications. Trist, E. L. (1983). Referent Organizations and the Development of Interorganizational Domains. Human Relations, 36: 247268. Useem, M. (1984). The Inner Circle. New York: Oxford University Press. Vernon, J., S. Essex, D. Pinder, and K. Curry (2005). Collaborative Policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (2): 325345. Waddock, S. A. (1989). Understanding Social Partnerships: An Evolutionary Model of Partnership Organizations. Administration and Society, 21 (1): 78100. Wasserman, S., and K. Faust (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies. New York: Free Press. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press. Wood, D. J., and B. Gray (1991). Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27: 139162. Zajac, E., and C. Olsen (1993). From Transaction Cost to Transactional Value Analysis: Implications for the Study of Interorganizational Strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 30(1): 132145.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at CLEMSON UNIV on August 28, 2013