Partnership and Regional Tourism in Brazil: Federal University of Alagoas, Brazil Sheffield Hallam University, UK

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.
11381164, 2002
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
0160-7383/02/$22.00
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
PII: S0160-7383(02)00033-6
PARTNERSHIP AND REGIONAL

TOURISM IN BRAZIL
Lindemberg Medeiros de Araujo
Federal University of Alagoas, Brazil
Bill Bramwell
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
Abstract: Partnerships in planning for regional development can bring together stake-
holders representing interests at national, regional, and local geographical scales. This paper
examines a regional tourism development partnership in Northeast Brazil. It explores the
effects of socioeconomic and political contexts on this collaborative arrangement, the pro-
cesses of joint working, and how participation was extended to parties not attending the
regular meetings. The partnership focused on coordination among government organiza-
tions at different spatial scales and with various functions, with participants largely confined
to the public sector. Using this assessment, an analytical framework is presented to assist
other researchers interested in this theme. Keywords: partnerships, regional development,
planning, collaboration theory, community consultation. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.
Resume: Les partenariats dans la planification pour le developpement regional peuvent

mettre en contacte des protagonistes qui representent des interets a` lechelle geographique
nationale, regionale ou locale. Cet article examine un partenariat pour le developpement
du tourisme regional dans le nord-est du Bresil. On examine les effets des contextes socio-
economique et politique sur cet arrangement qui est fait en collaboration, les processus de
travailler collectivement et la facon dont on a rendu possible la participation a` ceux qui
nont pas assiste aux reunions regulie`res. Le partenariat a surtout porte sur la coordination
entre les organisations gouvernementales aux differentes echelles geographiques et avec
diverses fonctions, dont les participants travaillent generalement dans le secteur public. On
presente un cadre analytique pour aider dautres chercheurs qui sinteressent a` ce sujet.
Mots-cles: partenariats, developpement regional, planification, theorie de collaboration, con-
sultation communitaire. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION
Governments in many countries endorse the use of partnership
arrangements in planning for tourism development. By encouraging
regular, face-to-face meetings among various participants, partnerships
have the potential to promote discussion, negotiation, and the building
Lindemberg Medeiros de Araujo teaches environmental and development studies in the

Department of Geography and Environment, Federal University of Alagoas, Brazil. He has
edited a book on the geography of Alagoas state. Bill Bramwell is Reader in Tourism, Shef-
field Hallam University (Howard Street, Sheffield S1 1WB, UK. Email
<w.m.bramwell@shu.ac.uk>). He co-edits the Journal of Sustainable Tourism and his research
interests are Mediterranean tourism, environmental policies, and community responses to
tourism.
1138
ARAUJO AND BRAMWELL 1139
of mutually acceptable proposals about how tourism should develop

(Hall 2000; Healey 1997). Among the reasons for the growing interest
in interorganizational collaboration is the belief that it may lead to the
pooling of knowledge, expertise, capital and other resources, greater
coordination of relevant policies, increased acceptance of the resulting
policies, and more effective implementation (Pretty 1995). In such
ways, destinations and groups of organizations might gain competitive
advantage (Huxham 1996; Kotler, Haider and Rein 1993). Further,
some commentators contend that there is a moral obligation to involve
the range of affected parties in discussions and decisions about poten-
tial developments (Innes 1995; Tacconi and Tisdell 1992).
Despite their potential advantages, there are often significant diffi-
culties with partnership approaches to planning (Bramwell and Lane
2000). One potential difficulty is that involving diverse actors in regular
meetings and decisionmaking is usually complex and time-consuming.
Such collaboration can face difficulties because groups refuse to work
with others as this may reduce their own influence or power, or
because they distrust other parties (Hall and Jenkins 1995). When
stakeholders are involved in joint working, they may not be disposed
to listen respectfully to the views of others or to take them into account.
In some places there may be no tradition of several organizations part-
icipating in decisionmaking. In particular, a participation approach
developed in and for developed countries may fail in the socioecon-
omic, cultural, administrative or political circumstances of a less
developed country (Roberts and Simpson 1999; Timothy 1998, 1999a;
Tosun and Jenkins 1998).
Published work on this theme has grown considerably in recent
years, notably research drawing on collaboration theory (Fyall, Oakley
and Weiss 2000; Parker 2000). From this theoretical perspective, joint
working can occur when several parties want to respond to a common
problem domain, but individually they do not control enough rel-
evant resources to respond as effectively as they want. Given such
resource interdependency, several groups may work together if they
consider that this would bring them more benefits than acting alone,
including through exploitation to obtain resources at the expense of
others (Gamm 1981; Gray 1989; Selin and Beason 1991). In this con-
text, Wood and Gray define collaboration as a process where a group
of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an inter-
active process, using shared rules, norms and structures, to act or
decide on issues related to that domain (1991:146). The actors are
autonomous as they retain independent decisionmaking powers
despite working with each other within a framework of rules or other
expectations. Normally collaborative interaction is considered a rela-
tively formal process involving regular, face-to-face dialogue, these
being features that distinguish it from other forms of participation
(Carr, Selin and Schuett 1998). Wood and Grays definition of partner-
ship working also suggests that the people involved must intend to
develop a mutual orientation in response to an issue.
Gray (1989) argues that collaboration involves joint decisionmaking
among key parties in a problem domain. She identifies five critical
1140 REGIONAL TOURISM PARTNERSHIP
features: groups are autonomous but interdependent; solutions

emerge by dealing constructively with differences; joint ownership of
decisions is involved; groups assume collective responsibility for the
future direction of the domain; and collaboration is an emergent pro-
cess. There may be variations among differing partnerships with these
features. For example, they may vary in their duration or time-scale;
still, they need to be based on actors interacting on several occasions.
Selin (2000) suggests that tourism partnerships intended to promote
sustainable development may vary according to such attributes as their
geographic scale, legal basis, locus of control, and their organizational
diversity and size. Their geographic orientation may be at a com-
munity, state, regional, or national scale, while the legal basis for their
establishment may come voluntarily from the grassroots or it may be
mandated in legislation. Similarly, the locus of control for this shared
activity may lie largely with a lead agency or else be dispersed among
numerous actors, and their organizational complexity and size may
involve just a few groups in only one sector or a large number of parties
from multiple sectors. Timothy (1999b) identifies four types of part-
nerships in the context of tourism planning. As well as the better-
known public-private sector form, they may operate among govern-
ment agencies, among levels of administration (such as among nation,
state and municipality) and among the same administrative level(s)
across territorial political boundaries.
There is scope for further research on five aspects of tourism devel-
opment partnerships related to this study. First, more research could
focus on issues involved in joint working at a regional scale, as most
previous studies have examined community or local level collaboration
(Getz and Jamal 1994; Jamal and Getz 1995, 2000; Reed 2000).
Regional tourism planning is taken here to occur at a geographical
scale that is subnational but covers a larger spatial area than a local
community. Planning for regional tourism is a complex undertaking,
representing a formidable challenge for any partnership. A key issue
is that it affects multiple groups, such as government, private sector,
nongovernmental organizations, and local communities. These groups
will differ according to whether their interests are focused more at the
local, regional, or national scale. For example, the stakeholders with
an interest in a region will encompass local municipalities as well as
others with interests focused outside the region, such as the national
government and many banks, airlines, hotel chains, and conservation
organizations. The complexity of such differences in geographical
interest adds to the general difficulty for tourism planning that the
industry is fragmented and it has interfaces with diverse policy areas,
such as transportation, education, and agriculture.
If regional tourism partnerships are so complex, why might they be
useful? In theory at least, they are well positioned to bring together
local, regional, and national interests within a regional development
perspective (Gunn 1994; Inskeep 1994; Tosun and Jenkins 1996). They
also have potential to assist national government to take account of
local aspirations and characteristics, and hence to reduce tensions
among national, regional, and local views. Regional-scale joint activity
might also help to secure the goals of redistributing development and

related benefits in more equitable ways among more and less
developed parts of a country. In addition, such shared arrangements
could assist in gaining enhanced coordination among physical, macro-
economic, and social planning, as well as greater cooperation among
adjacent local government areas that may have intense political rivalr-
ies (Joppe 1996; Komilis 1994). Further, the increasing importance of
external and often global forces in society may make it logical to plan
at a spatial scale larger than local communities, but at a scale that is still
meaningful and open to influence by local people (Jenkins 2000).
A second aspect of tourism partnerships that has received only lim-
ited attention is the broader contexts within which they emerge, evolve,
and eventually are terminated or changed into another form. They are
affected by the dynamic interplay between internal and external forces,
with the latter including diverse social, cultural, economic, and polit-
ical influences. Selin and Chavez (1995) tease out some external influ-
ences affecting the original setting up of joint working in tourism,
describing them as antecedents. These external influences might
include a local crisis, the intervention of a convenor, a legal mandate
from central government, or prior relations among stakeholders in
existing networks. More attention could be paid to how such external
influences interact with internal relations in tourism partnerships dur-
ing their establishment, evolution, and possible closure.
Collaborative working in less developed countries may face enor-
mous difficulties from external and internal problems, and these diffi-
culties may be impossible to overcome (Ashley and Roe 1998: Desai
1996; Few 2000). For example, Tosun (2000:614) identifies a number
of formidable operational, structural, and cultural limitations to local
communities participating in tourism policymaking in developing
countries, and these limitations are likely to affect local community
participation in partnerships. According to Tosun, one administrative
constraint found in many developing countries is that power may be
highly centralized in national government, with little remaining with
local government. In addition, there are often complex bureaucracies
and related jealousies within government in developing countries that
fragment the planning process and obstruct coordinated policymak-
ing. In some developing countries there is also little experience of
democracy, or democracy is largely limited to business, political, or
professional e lites, or there are clientelistic relations where clients seek
favors from powerful patrons. In addition, poor social groups may be
uninterested in being involved in planning as they are preoccupied
with making ends meet or because of their history of being excluded
from decisionmaking. Further consideration can usefully be paid to
how such difficulties affect the scope, if any, for the involvement of
local communities and other interest groups in tourism partnerships
in less developed countries.
A third aspect of collaborative arrangements ripe for further study
concerns the issues they commonly face during their various develop-
ment phases. Jamal and Getz (1995) advocate the application in tour-
ism research of Grays (1989) framework of issues that are most com-
mon in specific phases of joint working. Table 1 summarizes the

framework of issues and phases proposed by Gray in 1996. In the first
problem setting collaborative phase, the key issues relate to con-
vening relevant stakeholders, securing some common definition of the
problem, and getting a commitment to work together. During the
direction setting phase, the participants explore the problem in some
depth and attempt to reach agreement about a particular direction
and related actions. The implementation phase involves ensuring
that the agreements reached are followed through into practice,
including securing the institutional arrangements for implementation
work. While arguing for this general sequence, Gray also emphasizes
that the phases are not necessarily separate and distinct in practice.
Overlapping and recycling back to earlier issues that were not
addressed may be necessary (1996:62). Grays framework has been
applied in only a few tourism studies. Two applications to this sector
are Selin and Chavezs (1995) analysis of three US Forest Service part-
nerships, and Parkers (2000) examination of planning on the Carib-
bean island of Bonaire. Both studies provide helpful insights into col-
laborative working in tourism, indicating the potential value of further
applications of Grays framework.
Fourth, further research would be useful on how collaborative work
in tourism may incorporate participation by a broader range of inter-
ested organizations and individuals. Partnerships usually involve a rela-
tively small number of individuals in regular, face-to-face meetings
where they are engaged in shared analysis, and eventually may reach
agreements and make decisions together. However, such interorgani-
zational working can be combined with other types of participation
involving many more people, with potential to do this through consul-
tation. According to Pretty (1995), consultative participation involves
people being asked to express their opinions, and a few stakeholders,
usually professionals, listen to the views expressed. While these pro-
fessionals may modify their decisions in the light of the resulting opi-
nions, they are under no obligation to take these views on board. The
professionals retain their power as they define the problems, conduct
the information gathering process, control the analysis, and make the
decisions about how to respond (Tosun 1999; Twyman 2000). The
results of such consultation can be reported in partnership meetings,
although there is no obligation to heed the views expressed. A variety
of techniques can be used to consult with large numbers of people,
including drop-in centers, questionnaire surveys, focus group inter-
views, workshops, and public hearings; further, these techniques can
be used in combination (Keogh 1990; Simmons 1994; Yuksel, Bramwell
and Yuksel 1999). Marien and Pizam argue that effective participation
programs in tourism require a combination of techniques that will
work best for its unique set of constituents (1997:172).
Finally, there will be real value from further evaluations of the extent
to which specific partnerships promote participation by local com-
munities in tourism planning. This topic demands further consider-
ation as it is often local people who are left out of the planning and
operation of development projects. For example, assessments of tour-
Table 1. Grays Framework of Issues and Phases in Partnership Development
Issue Description
Phase 1: Problem-Setting
Common Definition of Problem The problem needs to be important
enough to collaborate and must be
common to several stakeholders.
Commitment to Collaborate Stakeholders need to feel that
collaborating will solve their own
problem. Shared values are key.
Involvement of Stakeholders An inclusive process that includes
multiple stakeholders so the problem can
be understood.
Legitimacy of Stakeholders Not only expertise but also power
relationships are important.
Leaders Characteristics Collaborative leadership is key to success.
Stakeholders need to perceive the leader
as unbiased.
Identification of Resources Funds from government or foundations
may be needed for less well-off
organizations.
Phase 2: Direction-Setting
Establishing Ground Rules Gives stakeholders a sense of fair process
and equity of power.
Agenda-Setting Stakeholders different motivations for
joining mean that establishing a common
agenda may be difficult.
Organizing Subgroups Large committees may need smaller
working groups.
Joint Information Search The joint search for information can help
to understand other sides of the
negotiation and to find a common basis
for agreement.
Exploring of Options Multiple interests mean that multiple
options need to be considered.
Reaching Agreement A commitment is needed to go ahead on
a particular course of action.
Phase 3: Implementation
Dealing with Constituencies Stakeholders need to ensure their
constituents understand the trade-offs and
support the agreement.
Building External Support Ensuring other organizations that
implement are on-side.
Structuring Voluntary efforts can work, but a formal
organization may be needed to co-
ordinate long-term collaboration.
Monitoring the Agreement and Ensuring This may involve more financial
Compliance negotiations.
Source: Adapted from Gray (1996:6164).

ism partnerships have rarely examined them in relation to the several

typologies of local participation devised in other fields of study. While
there are many such typologies, a basic distinction is that between a
system-maintaining and system-transforming process, that is between
local involvement where power and control is held externally as dis-
tinct from where it is initiated by local people and they retain control
(Shepherd 1998:180). Prettys typology describes seven levels of local
participation, ranging from manipulative involvement, where virtually
all power and control rest externally with other groups, to self-mobiliz-
ation, where residents act to change systems by taking initiatives inde-
pendently of external institutions. The latter does not rule out the
involvement of external institutions or advisers, but they are present
only as enablers and the local community retains control. The range
of forms of involvement in Prettys typology includes varying degrees
of external engagement and local control, and reflects the differing
power relations among them. Collaborative arrangements could use-
fully be examined in relation to this typology.
The paper examines the five aforementioned aspects of shared work-
ing for the case of the Costa Dourada project, which used a partnership
approach to regional tourism planning in Northeast Brazil. Consider-
ation is given to the wider socioeconomic and political context affect-
ing this regional-scale activity. The Costa Dourada case is also evaluated
using Grays categories of issues and related phases involved in collab-
orative work, and then in relation to how the project has sought to
incorporate the views of a broad range of people. An evaluation is also
made of whether or not this initiative successfully involved a broad
range of interest groups, including local communities. Based on these
assessments, a framework is put forward to assist in evaluations of the
dynamics of other tourism partnerships.
THE COSTA DOURADA PROJECT

The Costa Dourada project originated in a larger program for
the Northeast of Brazil conceived by the federal government. This
Action Program for Tourism Development of the Northeast
(PRODETUR/NE) was intended to strengthen tourism in the Nor-
theast and to involve coordinated action among national, state, and
municipal organizations (Becker 1995). Major geographical concen-
trations of tourism investment and activity were proposed, with one
such concentration being the Costa Dourada initiative on the north
coast of the state of Alagoas. This latter initiative promotes regional-
scale development, encompassing a coastal belt of about 100 km by 20
km and ten local municipalities with a combined population of 148,080
(Figure 1) (SEPLANDES 1998).
The Costa Dourada project promotes the expansion and improve-
ment of its main product, namely sun and beach tourism, as well as
diversification of this product through ecotourism, visits to farm-based
rum distilleries, and raft and boat trips to the offshore coral reef
(SEPLAN 1994:9). The intention is to improve tourism-related infra-
structure in the Costa Dourada region, including access roads, sewage
Figure 1. The Costa Dourada Project, Brazil
systems, waste disposal, telecommunications, water supply, and elec-

tricity. Much of this infrastructure will be concentrated in the major
tourist center of Camaragibe, and three smaller tourist centers in
Paripueira, Porto de Pedras, and Maragogi municipalities (Figure 1).
The project forms part of the Program for Tourism Development of
the State of Alagoas (PRODETUR/AL) within the larger
PRODETUR/NE. The former has the broad aim of encouraging the

regions socioeconomic development, taking into account its environ-
mental preservation and restoration (Becker 1995; SEPLAN 1994:3).
The Costa Dourada initiative seeks to use tourism to promote sus-
tainable development in what is a particularly poor region of Brazil,
and it is scheduled to operate from 1994 to 2010 (CODEAL 1993;
DOE/AL 1997). While it will improve the regions infrastructure, it is
also intended to increase job opportunities, health care, education,
and social facilities (SEPLAN 1994; SEPLANDES 1998). Tourism is
seen as a vehicle to encourage regional economic growth and sus-
tainable development. Another objective is to strengthen the regions
municipalities as institutions so that they can assist effectively with the
projects implementation and also cope with the resulting economic
expansion and related environmental and social pressures.
Study Methods
This evaluation of the Costa Dourada project covers the period up
to mid-1998 and it is based on numerous sources. It is the perceptions
of individuals that tend to drive, or inhibit, a social process like collab-
oration (Parker 2000). Hence, in order to obtain perceptual or opi-
nion-based findings, interviews were administered in mid-1998 with all
29 representatives who had regularly attended the Costa Dourada part-
nership meetings (Araujo and Bramwell 1999). A preliminary list of
participants was compiled after discussion with two planners and others
involved in the project and after evaluating planning documents and
legislation. The Coordinator General of the Planning Unit for the pro-
ject was then asked to indicate which of the organizations and individ-
uals, or others not on the list, had often attended meetings up to mid-
1998. This method identified 29 regular participants. All agreed to
being included in the study and for each an interview and question-
naire was completed.
The interviews were based on a pre-determined schedule of ques-
tions focusing on planning and collaborative issues, with the questions
designed to relate to the issues and associated phases of joint working
(Gray 1989, 1996). At the same time, these questions were used flexi-
bly; when new or interesting ideas or themes arose, they were pursued
in more depth. The use of interviews facilitated assessments of sociocul-
tural meanings and the perceptions of power relations among those
who attended the meetings. The interviews were tape-recorded and on
average lasted 45 minutes. Responses in the resulting transcripts were
first searched for potential concepts and themes, the commonalities
and differences in responses within and among interviews were exam-
ined, and broad patterns were identified for the concepts and themes
that emerged. The interview contents were partly checked for consist-
ency through the 29 partnership participants also completing a ques-
tionnaire that included many of the same issues discussed face-to-face.
The instruments used closed options for responses to the questions,
notably two types of Likert scales. Further insights on public policies
and the projects work were gained from newspaper reports in Gazeta de
Alagoas, from published legislation, administrative acts, and technical

reports, and from the observation of project meetings and other plan-
ning activities.
Context of the Costa Dourada Partnership

Arrangements for shared working are conceived and develop in the
context of diverse external influences, including dynamic socioecon-
omic and political forces. These influences may encourage or discour-
age collaborative activity. In turn such joint working can induce
changes to the context within which it operates. The Costa Dourada
partnership is evaluated here in relation to the external influences
forming the pre-conditions (Gray 1989) or background antecendents
(Fyall et al 2000; Selin and Chavez 1995), as well as in relation to how
these influences affected its subsequent development. The analytical
categories found to be helpful to assess these influences are modifi-
cations of the categories suggested by Selin and Chavez (1995).
A major influence on the Costa Dourada initiative has been the sev-
ere socioeconomic crisis affecting the north coast of Alagoas State. The
regions population suffers from high unemployment, low pay, sea-
sonal jobs, poor welfare and education provision, low literacy levels,
and high rates of disease. The poverty of the majority in the region
which is one of Brazils poorestalso contrasts sharply with the
extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a few (Die gues Ju nior
1980). The local towns have also been relatively isolated because of
poor access roads. Acute problems of environmental degradation
include discharge into the rivers and sea of untreated domestic sewage
and organic-rich effluents from sugar cane refining (Araujo and Power
1993). The scale of these economic, social, and infrastructure prob-
lems may have encouraged a belief that the region required the type
of substantial, coordinated policy response that the Costa Dourada pro-
ject appeared to offer.
A very tangible incentive behind acceptance of the project has been
that it could secure finance from the Action Program for Tourism
Development of the Northeast (PRODETUR/NE), a government plan
partly funded by the Inter-American Development Bank. Public fund-
ing has been made available for investment in the project area in order
to encourage the private sector to increase its investment in tourism.
The regions sandy beaches and coral reef are resources with notable
tourism market potential, potential that had already attracted some
hotels, bars, and restaurants despite the regions deficient infrastruc-
ture and poor access (Araujo and Power 1993; SEPLAN 1994). So far
the regions severe problems and the prospect of funding from a
government program have clearly helped prompt public-sector organi-
zations to support the Costa Dourada scheme and its objective of pro-
moting sustainable development through tourism-related investment.
This common vision among several interest groups has encouraged a
shared approach.
Effective leadership in establishing and managing a partnership is con-
sidered important by several researchers (Long and Arnold 1995;
Miller, Rossing and Steele 1992). The Alagoas state government was
responsible for initiating the Costa Dourada project within
PRODETUR/NE, and it commissioned consultants to assess the
regions tourism potential and to draft the schemes terms of reference
(CODEAL 1993). It also created the Program for Tourism Develop-
ment of the State of Alagoas (PRODETUR/AL), through which fund-
ing from the governments PRODETUR/NE reaches the Costa Dour-
ada project. The state government also gave a clear legislative and legal
mandate to the Planning Unit within the PRODETUR/AL to lead the
project, setting up the Unit in May 1996. In addition, the state govern-
ment instructed the Planning Unit to listen to interested parties,
including national and regional agencies and the ten municipalities in
the area, and this encouraged the Unit to employ a collaborative
approach (DOE/AL 1996, 1997; SEPLAN 1994). Perhaps most
important of all, the interorganizational approach adopted by the
Costa Dourada project had been affected by wider changes in Brazils
policymaking networks, with an emerging trend in recent years toward
wider stakeholder participation in the shaping of public policies (Von
Mettenheim 1992; Petras 1992; Torres 1992).
From 1964 to the mid-80s, Brazil was ruled by a military regime that
virtually excluded civil society and its organizations from decision-
making. This centralized authoritarian dictatorship intensified Brazils
rapid economic growth but at the cost of notable cuts in social welfare
and of large-scale environmental degradation. Despite the political
constraints, there was some growth in the environmental movement
and related organizations during the 70s. In Alagoas, the pioneering
Movement for Life sought to block the military regimes decisions
to build a large chlorine factory and also an industrial center in an
environmentally sensitive area in the state. The collapse in the mid-
80s of Brazils 20-year dictatorship meant that public sector bodies had
to deal with much uncertainty, as previously they had served the objec-
tives of the military and now they had to redefine their roles to serve
the emergent democracy. However, it provided opportunities to revive
the countrys previous democratic legacy when various actors had
exerted more political pressure (Garcia 1988; Ribeiro 1998; Vieira
1995; Viola 1987). Since the mid-80s, there have been various govern-
ment experiments in involving civil society in the democratic project,
including the use of partnerships. In Alagoas, joint working initiatives
have been established in the 90s in fields such as education and health
care. Politicians representing social movements have also been elected
in Alagoas at state level, although less so than in several other Brazilian
states where there are also politicians representing environmental and
social movements. One factor here is the legacy of political dominance
by a relatively small number of families who own the sugar cane plan-
tations and processing factories, which are key elements of the regional
economy. These families have high level political representation
through the deputies and sometimes governors of the state, as well as
through deputies and senators in the Brazilian Congress.
It is paradoxical that the involvement of various agencies in the
Costa Dourada project might have been encouraged by the consider-
able political, administrative and financial instability of the government

of Alagoas state during the 90s. For example, the state government
had been accused of mismanagement of public funds, it had suffered
from regular turnover of key public officials, and its failure to meet
loan repayments had stopped it from being able to take on new loans.
These severe problems meant the government often failed to deliver
on its promises, and had lost credibility and authority. In turn these
difficulties may have boosted the attraction of an alternative form of
governance, although these problems had also deterred the private
sector from involvement in the Costa Dourada partnership.
Collaborative Working and Problem-Setting

When the research was conducted in mid-1998, the Costa Dourada
partnership meetings had taken place over a two-year period. The
meetings were organized by the Planning Unit in the PRODETUR/AL,
they were intended to involve several parties in policymaking, and the
research findings indicate that 29 representatives of organizations had
regularly attended them. Grays (1996) framework presented in Table
1 is used to assess the issues and developmental phases that had
emerged by mid-1998. Only selected issues in each phase are exam-
ined, beginning with the problem-setting one.
Common Definition of the Problem. Gray (1996) suggests that during
the problem-setting phase, the appropriate stakeholders agree to talk
about the issues, to convene, and to make a commitment to work
together. To secure this commitment, several parties must have a simi-
lar definition of the problem which must be important enough for
them to want to invest time to work with others. The interviews indicate
that there was a fairly high degree of agreement about the projects
major issues among partners in the partnership. As many as 23 of the
29 mentioned that infrastructure development was a key issue. Other
major issues mentioned by several included conservation of the
environment, effective land-use planning, enhancing institutional
capacity, sustainable development, and improvement in the com-
munitys quality of life. As many as 27 replied that there was an agreed
view among them about the projects main issues and priorities for
policies.
The convergence in view about key issues might have been influ-
enced by the findings of a study produced prior to the partnerships
establishment by consultants appointed by the state government to
assess the tourism potential of the north coast of Alagoas (CODEAL
1993). This report highlighted major issues similar to those mentioned
by the participants. The report, the endorsement of many of its
elements by the Planning Unit, and the prospect of substantial regional
investment through the Costa Dourada initiative could have encour-
aged the partnership members to have a similar frame of reference
about the regions development. Nevertheless, the participants were
likely to have varied more in their views about the main issues if they
had significant underlying reservations or doubts about the projects
emerging objectives.
Involvement of Stakeholders. According to Gray, successful collabor-

ation depends on including a broad enough spectrum of stakeholders
to mirror the critical components of the problem(1989:68). If legit-
imate individuals are excluded from joint working, they may conse-
quently block efforts to put the resulting policies into practice. Among
the 29 who regularly attended the Costa Dourada meetings there were
six from organizations with interests focused largely at the national
scale, 13 at the regional scale, and 10 at the local scale (all 10 munici-
palities in the region). This regional partnership also brought together
representatives of public sector bodies at national, state, and local
scales, and across such diverse policy areas as regional development
(Department for the Development of the North East), tourism (Tourist
Board of the State of Alagoas), coastal management (Coastal Manage-
ment Project), and transport (Department of Roads of the State of
Alagoas). There were two government agencies primarily representing
the environmental policy area: the Brazilian Institute for the Environ-
ment and Renewable Natural Resources, and the Institute for the
Environment of the State of Alagoas. By involving such a range of pub-
lic sector bodies, there were opportunities for the vertical and horizon-
tal integration of interests operating at three geographical scales and
for coordination among several types of regional policies (Hall 2000).
There was also potential to reduce the fragmentation of planning
within the public sector in the region, including promoting
cooperation among neighboring municipalities.
However, a crucial limitation for the partnership was that private
sector and nongovernmental organizations were not involved to any
large degree. Among the 29 participants, the only ones not wholly in
the public sector were a representative of a private sector company
(Brazilian Company of Airport Infrastructure), a public-private sector
infrastructure company (Water and Sewage Company of the State of
Alagoas), an NGO linking the municipal authorities (Association of
the Municipalities of the State of Alagoas), and of an environmental
NGO (Foundation for Marine Mammals). At the same time, all 10
municipalities in the region were members and, to a degree, might
have represented the diverse interests in their communities, including
business interests. Hence, the participants were predominantly govern-
ment organizations, but community groups, residents associations,
social welfare organizations, trade unions and church bodies were all
excluded. The very limited NGO involvement might have been highly
significant, given their potential importance in protecting environmen-
tal resources and in advocating social welfare concerns.
Numerous participants claimed that the private sector had been
invited to attend but had declined to do so. Some attributed their
reluctance to political interference, staff changes, and financial con-
straints adversely affecting the status of the main planning organization
in Alagoas, this being the body to which the Planning Unit reports.
Another argument was that there was only a limited tradition of the
business sector working with the public one. One who regularly
attended claimed that the private sector didnt get involved because
they dont believe in the process and also because some of them are
only interested in things that can bring immediate results. The Coor-
dinator General of the Planning Unit stated that they would increase
their effort to involve the private sector when the Unit had received
more funding for new developments and the business community
could then see more tangible results and recognize that the initiative
was being effective.
Many participants claimed that only two NGOs were involved
because in Alagoas state they often lack the resources required to be
engaged. For example, some NGOs may have lacked the funds to travel
regularly from the project area to Maceio, the capital of Alagoas State
and the venue for most of the partnership meetings. NGO involvement
could also have been discouraged by the tensions between environ-
mental groups and government that occurred during the 20-year dic-
tatorship era. There was also a widespread presumption that the
municipalities should represent their local communities, including the
varied interest groups in these local government areas. An NGO might
also consider it can pursue its cause more effectively from outside such
joint activity by using other approaches, including media campaigns,
public meetings, boycotts, and demonstrations.
In effect, the membership was largely restricted to public sector
organizations and the collaborative arrangement was largely a means
to promote coordination among diverse government agencies
operating at differing spatial scales and with various functions. Accord-
ing to Selins (2000) typology of tourism partnerships, the arrange-
ment was largely single sector (governmental), although it embraced
quite a large number of bodies within that sector. In the terms of Tim-
othys (1999b) typology, the arrangement was predominantly among
government agencies operating at national, state, and municipal scales,
and it involved municipalities in policymaking that crossed their terri-
torial boundaries. Given the commonalities among the members, they
were likely to share many values, procedural practices, and forms of
language, and few were likely to be strongly anti-tourism.
Without more social welfare and environmental interest groups
attending the meetings, it was much less likely that prominence would
be given to cautious approaches to economic development or to social
equity. The highly marginal involvement of the business sector reduced
opportunities to secure wider appreciation of the projects concern for
long-term sustainable development, and it could well hinder sub-
sequent work to put policies into practice. Through the omission from
membership of local communities, residents associations, and other
local interest groups (other than indirectly through municipal
representatives), a chance was lost to secure grassroots engagement.
Further, the restricted range of the participants in the partnership was
likely to have affected all other aspects of its policies and operation.
Role of the Convenor. Partnerships are often led by a convenor, and

they may well be more successful when this facilitator is perceived to
have legitimate authority (Parker 2000; Wood and Gray 1991). As the
convenor of the Costa Dourada meetings, the Planning Unit quickly
established a generally positive reputation for its technical competence
and its commitment to working with a range of people. The Unit

adopted a strong position of leadership in the joint activity and it was
very influential in all of its aspects. For example, as many as 21 of the
29 participants considered that the Planning Unit had the last word
in decisions about who would be invited to join them. Fortunately for
the Planning Unit, while its strong influence on the partnership was
recognized by those involved, they accepted this influence without too
many doubts. Acceptance of the Planning Unit taking a strong lead
may have been encouraged by awareness that it had been entrusted to
make decisions about the allocation of substantial financial resources.
Collaborative Working and Direction-Setting

Gray (1996) suggests that during the second or direction-setting
phase of joint working, there is an emphasis on negotiation, with mem-
bers exploring the problem in depth and attempting to reach agree-
ment about alternatives. The emphasis is on establishing mutually
acceptable courses of action (Parker 2000).
Agenda-Setting. An important step in the negotiation process is set-

ting an agenda that is acceptable to all involved. In regional tourism
partnerships involving diverse partners, the task is likely to entail con-
siderable delicate debate as the members often differ in their interests
and in their level of expertise and power (Hall and Jenkins 1995; Sus-
skind and Madigan 1984). Partners who feel that their views are not
being taken into consideration may drop out of the discussions. In
the interviews with the Costa Dourada participants, four main policy
priorities were highlighted: infrastructure development, environmen-
tal conservation, planning for development, and increasing insti-
tutional capacities in the region. The same policy priorities were also
emphasized by the consultants appointed by the state government
prior to the setting up of the partnership in order to assess the regions
tourism potential (CODEAL 1993). The recommendations of these
advisers and of the Planning Unit may have steered discussions in the
meetings about the policy agenda. As many as 24 of the 29 partnership
members mentioned that the Planning Unit had influenced the policy
agenda, often suggesting that this input had been substantial.
Most of the partners broadly accepted the strong lead taken by the
Planning Unit in the decisionmaking process. Their acceptance was
probably encouraged by the Unit having consulted more widely than
was common practice when they refined the policy agenda rec-
ommended by the state governments consultants. For example, when
reviewing it, the Planning Unit had sought wider views using a work-
shop for numerous interest groups as well as the early meetings. A
partnership member explained how the participants made sugges-
tions that became amendments to the projects planning agenda.
Exploring the Options. If actors involved in joint activities are to

explore policy options openly, then they need to abide by shared rules,
to consider the perspectives of others, and to develop mutual trust
(Healey 1997). As many as 21 of the 29 Costa Dourada partners

strongly agreed and seven somewhat agreed it was important to
give full consideration to other participants views. However, there was
less strong agreement that other members actually gave full consider-
ation (only eight strongly agreed and 16 only somewhat agreed).
Despite differing interests among these partners, a substantial 27 of
the 29 suggested that their meetings were based on mutual respect
and trust.
Reaching Agreements. The chances of collaborative partners reaching

agreement are greater when they are able to express their views freely
and to listen respectfully to each other (Bramwell and Sharman 1999;
Healey 1997; Innes 1995). Twenty-three considered that local,
regional, and national members had all been given sufficient opport-
unities to express their views. A local government representative
described how in the meetings you express your view, someone else
disagrees, another one joins the discussion and puts another opinion
forward; that is, through expressing opinions and suggestions and by
discussing them, you reach decisions. According to a regional public
sector participant, the meetings are open, there are no all-powerful
people who will impose decisions upon the others. Several parti-
cipants argued that they, despite their differing specialist expertise or
knowledge, could put forward their views and could understand the
general issue being discussed. A representative of a federal organiza-
tion felt that everybody expresses their views and we can understand
all the levels of discussion.
However, some that regularly attended were not convinced that
everyone could express their views or that equal attention would be
paid to each persons opinions. For example, seven participants did
not consider it likely that their own organizations views would be taken
fully into consideration. One respondent suggested that some of them
tend to accept more easily things that are related to their interests.
They tend to put aside those things they perceive will take a long time
to consolidate. Technical modes of reasoning and discourse were
identified as an obstacle by one local government member, contending
that participants who are specialist planners with expertise in their
own respective fields of knowledge...are interested in their own opi-
nions. As many as five mentioned that the Planning Unit had most
influence when decisions were being made. For example, a federal
delegate commented that there is always an exchange of information,
the group try to reach a consensus, but the final decision lies with the
Planning Unit.
Agreements among those engaged in joint working usually depend
on them accepting the value of trade-offs or compromises for the col-
lective interest, even if the position taken is not always in their individ-
ual best interest (Bryson and Crosby 1992). In the Costa Dourada case,
13 mentioned agreements reached collectively which might not be in
the best interest of one or more of them. Seven made reference to
the decision that two municipalities would have to provide a site for
one of two solid waste treatment plants that would benefit all ten. Simi-
larly, three of them highlighted the decision to begin the provision of

water, sewage, and other infrastructure for the region in the munici-
pality of Maragogi. According to a local government official, The
other mayors complain a lot about many things being approved first
for the municipality of Maragogi at the expense of their interests.
When participants in the collaborative arrangement were asked
whether all of them were likely to support collective decisions that were
against their individual best interest, their responses suggested that
disagreement, dissent, and conflict could emerge in the future over
both existing partnership agreements and new issues.
When the 29 who regularly went to meetings were asked if there
existed a shared vision among them about how the initiative should
develop, only 15 agreed and as many as 12 disagreed. Among the
15 who agreed, there were still variations in what they emphasized
as the shared vision, although their responses are not necessarily
incompatible. The sustainable development of the region was emphas-
ized most often, with one participant arguing that tourism has been
chosen as a tool for regional development, but there is much behind
that. The objective is to develop the whole region economically and
socially, assuring development is sustainable in the long term.
The 15 partners who considered there was a shared project vision
were asked what had helped them to agree on it. All stated that it had
been facilitated by the joint activity among several relevant parties, and
by the open discussion. Four also highlighted the importance of the
authority and legitimacy of the Planning Unit, based in part on the
Units professional expertise and relatively unbiased approach. Their
views add support to Grays emphasis on the importance of a leader
of a partnership having the power to organize (1989:124). The Plan-
ning Units perceived legitimacy was notable because the state govern-
ment, which had set it up, was generally associated with financial, polit-
ical, and administrative difficulties. Four partners also stated that the
members had reached an agreed vision as they recognized the regions
urgent need for investment, a response reflecting their perceived inter-
dependence in relation to the areas major problems.
The 12 members who felt there was as yet no shared vision were
asked to explain this. Four argued that consensus was difficult to achi-
eve when the state government had little credibility and there was
much political uncertainty in the region. Another four thought it was
difficult to reach an agreed perspective because the municipal del-
egates did not fully accept the projects time-consuming process of con-
sensus-building and its emphasis on long-term rather than immediate
returns. Three participants explained that the regular meetings had
only operated for two years, contending this was too little time for
them to have reached a shared vision, which suggests they did not
necessarily rule out this eventually being achieved.
Collaborative Working and Implementation

Gray (1996) suggests that during the third or implementation phase
of a collaborative process, specific actions are taken to follow-through
on agreements already reached, and that this implementation requires

a systematic management of the interorganizational relations. The
Costa Dourada partnership had only been established two years when
this study was undertaken. Consequently, while some agreements
reached were being put into practice, the implementation of many
others had yet to begin. One action already started was construction
of a road linking the town of Barra de Santo Anto nio to the planned
tourist center of Camaragibe (Figure 1). A number of steps had been
taken to establish more systematic relationships among the project
partners and to strengthen institutions in the region, including cre-
ating a new team within the Department of Roads of the State of Ala-
goas for Costa Dourada-related work, and provision of staff training
workshops.
Dealing with Constituencies. Representatives of groups who are

involved in shared working are usually expected to be accountable to
the constituents they represent and to persuade them that agreements
reached are acceptable and should be supported. Dealing effectively
with constituents is important because if parties do not take time to
ensure that the various stakeholder constituencies understand the
rationale for the trade-offs made and support the final agreement, any
or all of them may disavow the agreement at some future date (Gray
1989:87). In the Costa Dourada case, most participants (25 of the 29)
claimed to consult with their constituents, and even more (28 of the
29) said they reported to their constituents about the schemes pro-
gress, indicating that most of them were accountable.
Structuring. The structuring process involves institutionalizing the

organization of joint activities, including formalizing the mechanisms
required for implementation work resulting from mutual agreements
(Jamal and Getz 1995; Selin and Chavez 1995). While Gray (1996)
depicts the structuring process as being most common in the third or
implementation phase of a partnership, in the Costa Dourada case the
formalizing of implementation responsibilities began almost at the out-
set. In particular, there was an early decision that key follow-up
responsibilities lay with the ten local municipalities and four of the
public or public-private sector agencies among the partners. At all
stages of the partnership, there was continuing discussion about
implementation responsibilities, and fairly early on support was pro-
vided for institutional consolidation of the ten municipalities so they
could play a continuing role. The full importance of these structuring
arrangements will only emerge subsequently when the initiative is
expected to deliver on its intended practical outcomes. The analysis
indicates that the Costa Douradas structuring process overlapped with
all three of Grays partnership phases (problem-setting, direction-set-
ting, and implementation), and it suggests that such overlaps between
phases were also evident for many other mutual activities.
Consultative Working
It has been shown that regular attendance at the Costa Dourada

meetings was restricted largely to delegates of public sector organiza-
tions, albeit from national, state, and local policy levels, and from
diverse policy fields. However, the Planning Unit sought to widen par-
ticipation by arranging some activities that involved a broader range
of stakeholders than those regularly attending the meetings. These
activities largely entailed consultative rather than collaborative involve-
ment. This was because the participants were encouraged to express
their views but were only involved occasionally, having limited opport-
unities to make policy decisions (Pretty 1995). Instead, the policy
decisions were taken in other arenas, either by the Costa Dourada part-
nership or by a few professionals. Two largely consultative activities are
examined, these being a three-day workshop organized at the start of
the initiative and a one-day workshop organized in each of the regions
ten municipalities.
The workshop at the project start was organized by the Planning
Unit to assist them to determine the schemes direction. According to
the partnership members who had attended this workshop, it had
brought together diverse actors, such as from the Planning Unit, the
ten municipalities, the private sector, and NGOs. They also claimed
that the event had helped in raising awareness of the initiative, in col-
lecting opinions in order to refine its strategy, and in identifying par-
ties to invite to the partnership meetings. This initial workshop left a
positive and lasting impression on the partnership members attending
it, and it seems to have added legitimacy to the projects agenda. One
other important outcome was the suggestion to hold another work-
shop, this time in each of the ten municipalities.
The workshop in each of the municipalities was used by the Planning
Unit to disseminate information in each locality and to gauge local
views about the project. While as many as 235 people attended one of
these workshops, varying from 12 in Porto de Pedras municipality to
42 in Japaratinga, this was a tiny fraction of the regions population.
A notable 74% of them were in municipal government employment,
particularly in jobs in education (21%) and health and social welfare
(20%). Others attending included local people from the fishing and
agricultural industries (5%), from other business sectors (5%), from
church and welfare organizations (5%), and from residents associ-
ations (3%) (Araujo and Bramwell 1999). While these municipal work-
shops promoted discussion and negotiation among numerous local
people, there were only limited opportunities for direct dialogue with
the Planning Unit staff, with only one staff member and three consult-
ants working for the Unit attending each workshop. Instead, these staff
provided written workshop summaries for subsequent assessment and
consideration. These consultative municipal workshops helped in
identifying local requirements for institutional strengthening and for
the provision of infrastructure and public services. They also provided
an opportunity to promote coordinated local responses and to encour-
age local communities to look to their municipality to represent their

interests (SEPLANDES 1998).
Consultation with many local people clearly occurred in the munici-
pal workshops, and hence they did widen participation in the Costa
Dourada project, albeit within limitations. One constraint was that so
many workshop participants were public sector employees, particularly
given this sectors dominance of the partnership meetings. Another
limitation was that a workshop was held only once in each municipality
and that other direct local community inputs had not been sought up
to mid-1998. Further, there seems to have been little local control over
this process of community engagement, and the process appears to
have had a focus on community inputs more in order to further the
projects objectives rather than to adjust those objectives.
Working in Other Policymaking Networks

The Planning Unit and the other organizations active in the Costa
Dourada joint working were also involved in a range of formal and less
formal policy-related networks that could affect directly or indirectly
this joint work. For example, representatives of eight of these organiza-
tions (including the Planning Unit) attended the Management Group
for Coordinated and Integrated Actions for Sustainable Development
of the North Coast of Alagoas, this being a relatively formal forum for
the coordination of varied development initiatives in the region and
one that also involved aspects of collaborative working. The role of the
Planning Unit had also been strengthened by it being widely accepted
in other policy arenas as the coordinating organization for tourism
policies in the project area. In particular, the Management Group for
Coordinated and Integrated Actions for Sustainable Development of
the North Coast of Alagoas had only met irregularly and it had allowed
the Planning Unit to assume the lead in relation to tourism
(DOE/AL 1997).
CONCLUSION
The study examined a partnership engaged in planning for regional
tourism development in a less developed country. Although the Plan-
ning Unit had attempted to involve a broad range of stakeholders,
regular attendance at the Costa Dourada meetings was restricted larg-
ely to public sector representatives, with meetings mainly concerned
with coordination of government policies. It was a partnership between
a fairly large number of government bodies operating at national, state,
and municipal scales, and it included municipalities in work that
crossed their own territorial administrative boundaries (Timothy
1999b). The participants represented varied policy areas, such as trans-
portation, environmental conservation, coastal planning, and public
utilities. The joint working arrangement assisted in bridging the policy
gulf among national, state, and municipal government, it encouraged
vertical and horizontal integration of policy decisions, and it promoted
a coordinated approach to regional planning.
The members were regularly engaged in the collaborative process

and they remained autonomous but interdependent. Policies emerged
in their meetings through them dealing constructively with their differ-
ences, with most of them feeling that they could discuss issues openly
and that they had some influence on the choice of policy direction.
They were mostly supportive of the decisionmaking process and of the
resulting decisions, and there was a reasonably strong sense of joint
ownership of these decisions. Decisions had been reached and
accepted collectively that were not in the best interest of one or more
of them, and some members had already accepted responsibility for
parts of the implementation work. Up to the time of this research, the
participants had assumed a degree of collective responsibility for the
future direction of the regions tourism development.
However, while the partnership generally retained the commitment
of its participants, they differed in their view as to whether or not a
shared vision had emerged about the project. Some attributed its
absence to the state governments political difficulties or to the
impatience of municipal representatives. Some participants were also
concerned about whether their own views were likely to be taken fully
into account. A fundamental limitation for the collaborative meetings
was that there was relatively little regular involvement of non-public-
sector actors, with only one private sector, one public-private sector,
and two NGO representatives among the 29 who regularly attended.
This restricted range of participants could cause major problems in
the long term. For example, future work to put initiatives into practice
might be hindered by the lack of commercial sector engagement.
Inskeep argues that with tourism development Public-private sector
coordination is an essential ingredient in successful implementation
(1994:240). The project may also fail to appreciate the concerns of
social welfare, environmental, and local community stakeholders, and
may not respond adequately to them. Such interest groups could pro-
vide vital alternative points of view, different expertise and other
resources for the partnership, and their exclusion increases the chance
that they might oppose or obstruct the initiative. Of course it would
be much more challenging to achieve effective partnership working
with such a broad range of groups.
The joint working among public sector bodies was encouraged by
the prospect of substantial funding being made available for the pro-
ject from the federal government-sponsored program,
PRODETUR/NE. The regions acute economic, social, and infrastruc-
ture problems meant that there was much enthusiasm to secure this
external funding. In particular, some of the basic infrastructure
required to attract tourism investment, such as sewage and road sys-
tems, would be of immediate benefit to the regions population.
Another encouragement to public sector involvement was the firm
leadership provided by the Planning Unit. Its reputation was strength-
ened by their legal mandate from the state government to adopt this
role, by their technical competence, and by their relatively unusual
degree of commitment to working with several stakeholders. The sub-
stantial political and administrative problems of the state government
may have increased the appeal of this partnership as an alternative

policymaking forum, although this did not apply for the regions com-
mercial sector.
To widen participation beyond those regularly involved in the part-
nership, workshops organized in the municipalities were attended by
a much broader range of stakeholders. They successfully attracted
numerous local people, raised their awareness, and provided valuable
information. But these took place only once in each municipality and
there was little attempt to promote and build upon local peoples skills
and abilities or to pass any control to them. The Planning Unit con-
ceived of these municipal workshops more as a means to achieve pro-
ject goals than as a means to alter the projects objectives. This con-
forms most closely to functional participation in Prettys (1994)
typology of the forms of peoples involvement in development pro-
grams and projects.
Shepherd argues that far more attention should be paid in less
developed countries to building up local peoples organizations in
order to encourage them to be engaged much more fully in rural
development projects. He suggests this approach should recognize that
the community is not just the local economic and political e lite, but
also the poor, women, and marginal groups and that conflict is a con-
sistent feature of the life of many communities. His contention is that
Viable, sustainable organizations which can be run by the rural poor
and exert an influence in the wider development arena are the mech-
anisms for participation (1998:182). However, the Costa Dourada
initiative had clearly adopted a more conventional approach. It
retained decisionmaking in a largely public-sector partnership, and it
sought to strengthen the administrative capacities of the municipal
authorities rather than building up other local groups and organiza-
tions. In the context of the economic, political, and administrative dif-
ficulties in Alagoas State, it would have been considerably more diffi-
cult to have encouraged very substantial participation and
decisionmaking by local people. Instead the partnerships approach in
these challenging circumstances was to retain much control and hence
to reduce uncertainty.
This papers analysis of interorganizational relations in the Costa
Dourada case has used Grays (1996) framework of issues that are most
common in specific phases of joint working. The paper also adapted
the analytical categories devised by Selin and Chavez (1995) in order
to evaluate external influences that affected the setting-up and sub-
sequent evolution of the partnership. These frameworks have provided
many valuable insights. They have been extended in Figure 2 within
a more comprehensive and integrative framework that is intended to
assist other researchers to understand the dynamics of collaborative
arrangements for tourism planning. This framework has guided the
present account of the Costa Dourada program, and it was derived
both deductively and inductively through an iterative process of
theoryobservationtheoryobservation. While the framework has
been shaped through an evaluation of a regional project in a less
Figure 2. Processes Involved in a Tourism Development Partnership
developed country, it may also have relevance for partnerships at other

geographical scales and for developed nations.
The framework focuses on processes and relationships. It locates the
shared activities of a tourism partnership within the context of external
influences, such as the incentives for joint working, the leadership skills
of the convenor, and the tourism resources of the destination area.
Such mutual arrangements are affected by the broader context and in
turn they can induce changes in that context. External influences on
a tourism partnership are also highlighted by Selin and Chavez (1995),
but, rather than depicting them as antecedents that affect its setting
up, they are incorporated here in the sense of the continuing context
within which it operates. Grays developmental collaborative phases are
also included in the framework, as is her suggestion that certain issues
tend to be particularly prominent in each phase. However, it should
be noted that not all partnerships will go through these phases, and
often there are considerable overlaps between phases. The flexible nat-
ure of such shared working should be emphasized, with collaborative
arrangements often being adjusted to changing circumstances.
The framework includes consideration of how a partnership might
use consultation activities in order to involve a larger number of stake-
holders than those regularly attending its meetings. It also encourages
the evaluation of how a partnership relates to other policymaking net-
works and arenas. For it recognizes the overlapping and simultaneous
ways in which policy issues discussed in one network may be considered
in others and also how stakeholders may participate in several contexts.
The framework indicates that attention should be paid to power differ-

entials among those attending collaborative meetings and in wider con-
sultation activities. But research on this theme requires the incorpor-
ation of theoretical perspectives on power and control. Other
researchers may wish to assess the merits of the proposed framework
by using it to evaluate different types of tourism development partner-
ship in various contexts. A
AcknowledgementsThanks are due to CAPES of Brazils Ministry for Education and

Sport, the Federal University of Alagoas, and Sheffield Hallam University for providing
funding. Many of the research ideas were discussed with Sheela Agarwal and Debra
Enzenbacher. Thanks are also extended to Osvaldo Vie gas, Ricardo Ce sar de Barros
Oliveira, Se rvio Tullio Vasconcelos Marinho, Carlos Barbosa, Joan Butt for the cartogra-
phy, and to all the respondents. The research for this paper was conducted while the
first author was based at Sheffield Hallam University.
REFERENCES
Araujo, L., and B. Bramwell
1999 Stakeholder Assessment and Collaborative Tourism Planning: The Case
of Brazils Costa Dourada Project. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7:356378.
Araujo, L., and S. Power
1993 Nature Conservation With Reference to the State of Alagoas, Brazil. The
Environmentalist 13:297302.
Ashley, C., and D. Roe
1998 Enhancing Community Involvement in Wildlife Tourism: Issues and
Challenges. Wildlife and Development Series 11. London: International Insti-
tute for Environment and Development.
Becker, B.
1995 Study and Evaluation of the Federal Policy for Tourism and Its Impact
on Coastal Regions of Brazil. Brasilia: Ministry of the Environment, Water
Resources and of the Legal Amazon.
Bramwell, B., and B. Lane
2000 Collaboration and Partnerships in Tourism Planning. In Tourism Collab-
oration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, B. Bramwell and
B. Lane, eds., pp. 119. Clevedon: Channel View.
Bramwell, B., and A. Sharman
1999 Collaboration in Local Tourism Policy-Making. Annals of Tourism
Research 26:392415.
Bryson, J., and B. Crosby
1992 Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems in a
Shared-Power World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carr, D., S. Selin, and M. Schuett
1998 Managing Public Forests: Understanding the Role of Collaborative Plan-
ning. Environmental Management 22:767776.
CODEAL
1993 Projeto Costa Dourada2a Etapa. Maceio: Companhia de Desenvolvi-
mento de Alagoas.
Desai, V.
1996 Access to Power and Participation. Third World Planning Review
18:217242.
Die gues Ju nior, M.
1980 O Bangue nas Alagoas. (2nd ed.) Maceio : EDUFAL.
DOE/AL
1996 Portaria SEPLAN-AL/PRODETUR No.001/GS/96. 13/5/96. Maceio :
Dia rio Oficial do Estado de Alagoas.
1997 Portaria SP No. 018/97, 29/4/97. Maceio : Dia rio Oficial do Estado de
Alagoas.
Few, R.
2000 Conservation, Participation and Power: Protected-Area Planning in the
Coastal Zone of Belize. Journal of Planning Education and Research
19:401408.
Fyall, A., B. Oakley, and A. Weiss
2000 Theoretical Perspectives Applied to Inter-organizational Collaboration
on Britains Inland Waterways. International Journal of Hospitality and Tour-
ism Administration 1:89112.
Gamm, L.
1981 An Introduction to Research in Inter-organizational Relations. Journal of
Voluntary Action Research 10:1852.
Garcia, D.
1988 Democracia y Ajuste Estructural. El Impacto de Las Polticas de Estabiliza-
cio n Sobre Las Logicas da la Accion Colectiva. Montevide u: Universidad de
la Republica, ALAS.
Getz, D., and T. Jamal
1994 The Environment-Community Symbiosis: A Case for Collaborative Tour-
ism Planning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2:152173.
Gray, B.
1989 Collaborating. Finding Common Ground for Multi-Party Problems. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
1996 Cross-Sectoral Partners: Collaborative Alliances Among Business, Govern-
ment and Communities. In Creating Collaborative Advantage, C. Huxham,
ed., pp. 5779. London: Sage.
Gunn, C.
1994 Tourism Planning. Basics, Concepts, Cases. (3rd ed.) Washington DC:
Taylor and Francis.
Hall, C.
2000 Tourism Planning. Policies, Processes and Relationships. Harlow: Pren-
tice Hall.
Hall, C., and J. Jenkins
1995 Tourism and Public Policy. London: Sage.
Healey, P.
1997 Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Lon-
don: Macmillan.
Huxham, C.
1996 The Search for Collaborative Advantage. In Creating Collaborative
Advantage, C. Huxham, ed., pp. 176180. London: Sage.
Innes, J.
1995 Planning Theorys Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and
Interpretive Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 14:183
190.
Inskeep, E.
1994 National and Regional Tourism Planning: Methodologies and Case Stud-
ies. London: Routledge.
Jamal, T., and D. Getz
1995 Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning. Annals of
Tourism Research 22:186204.
2000 Community Roundtables for Tourism-Related Conflicts: The Dialectics
of Consensus and Process Structures. In Tourism Collaboration and Partner-
ships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, B. Bramwell and B. Lane, eds., pp.
159182. Clevedon: Channel View.
Jenkins, J.
2000 The Dynamics of Regional Tourism Organizations in New South Wales,
Australia: History, Structures and Operations. Current Issues in Tourism
3:175203.
Joppe, M.
1996 Sustainable Community Tourism Development Revisited. Tourism Man-
agement 17:475479.
Keogh, B.
1990 Public Participation in Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism
Research 17:449465.
Komilis, P.
1994 Tourism and Sustainable Regional Development. In Tourism: The State
of the Art, A. Seaton, ed., pp. 6573. Chichester: Wiley.
Kotler, P., D. Haider, and I. Rein
1993 Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry and Tourism to Cities,
States and Nations. New York: Free Press.
Long, F., and M. Arnold
1995 The Power of Environmental Partnerships. Fort Worth: Dryden Press.
Marien, C., and A. Pizam
1997 Implementing Sustainable Tourism Development Through Citizen Par-
ticipation in the Planning Process. In Tourism, Development and Growth.
The Challenge of Sustainability, S. Wahab and J. Pigram, eds., pp. 164178.
London: Routledge.
Miller, L., E. Rossing, and S. Steele
1992 Partnerships: Shared Leadership Among Shareholders. Madison: Univer-
sity of Wisconsin.
Parker, S.
2000 Collaboration on Tourism Policy Making: Environmental and Commer-
cial Sustainability on Bonaire, NA. In Tourism Collaboration and Partner-
ships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, B. Bramwell and B. Lane, eds., pp.
7897. Clevedon: Channel View.
Petras, J.
1992 Electoral Regimes vs. Popular Assemblies: A Critique of Neo-Authori-
tarianism in the Early 90s. Binghampton: University of New York, LASA.
Pretty, J.
1995 The Many Interpretations of Participation. In Focus 16:45.
Reed, M.
2000 Collaborative Tourism Planning as Adaptive Experiments in Emergent
Tourism Settings. In Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Prac-
tice and Sustainability, B. Bramwell and B. Lane, eds., pp. 247271. Clevedon:
Channel View.
Ribeiro, D.
1998 Confisso es. Sa o Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
Roberts, L., and F. Simpson
1999 Developing Partnership Approaches to Tourism in Central and Eastern
Europe. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7:314330.
Selin, S.
2000 Developing a Typology of Sustainable Tourism Partnerships. In Tourism
Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, B.
Bramwell and B. Lane, eds., pp. 129142. Clevedon: Channel View.
Selin, S., and K. Beason
1991 Inter-organizational Relations in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research
18:639652.
Selin, S., and D. Chavez
1995 Developing an Evolutionary Tourism Partnership Model. Annals of Tour-
ism Research 22:844856.
SEPLAN
1994 Programa de Desenvolvimento Turmstico do Estado de Alagoas -
PRODETUR/AL: Estrate gia e Plano de Ac a o. Maceio : Secretaria de Planeja-
mento do Estado de Alagoas.
SEPLANDES
1998 Plano Estrate gico dos Servic os Pu blicos Municipais: Municpio de Marag-
ogi. Maceio : Secretaria de Planejamento e Desenvolvimento do Estado de Ala-
goas.
Shepherd, A.
1998 Sustainable Rural Development. London: Macmillan.
Simmons, D.
1994 Community Participation in Tourism Planning. Tourism Management
15:98108.
Susskind, L., and D. Madigan
1984 New Approaches to Resolving Disputes in the Public Sector. Justice Sys-
tem Journal 9:197203.
Tacconi, L., and C. Tisdell
1992 Rural Development Projects in LDCs: Appraisal, Participation and Sus-
tainability. Public Administration and Development 12:267278.
Timothy, D.
1998 Cooperative Tourism Planning in a Developing Destination. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 6:5268.
1999a Participatory Planning. A View of Tourism in Indonesia. Annals of Tour-
ism Research 26:371391.
1999b Cross-Border Partnership in Tourism Resource Management: Inter-
national Parks Along the US--Canada Border. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
7:182205.
Torres, C.
1992 The Municipal State, Educational Policy and Social Movements: The
Experience of the Partido dos Trabalhadores in Sa o Paulo, Brazil. Los Ang-
eles: UCLA, LASA.
Tosun, C.
1999 Towards a Typology of Community Participation in the Tourism Develop-
ment Process. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality
Research 10:113134.
2000 Limits to Community Participation in the Tourism Development Process
in Developing Countries. Tourism Management 21:613633.
Tosun, C., and C. Jenkins
1996 Regional Planning Approaches to Tourism Development: the Case of
Turkey. Tourism Management 17:519532.
1998 The Evolution of Tourism Planning in Third World Countries: A Cri-
tique. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 4:101114.
Twyman, C.
2000 Participatory Conservation? Community-Based Natural Resource Manage-
ment in Botswana. Geographical Journal 166:323335.
Vieira, L.
1995 Meio Ambiente, Desenvolvimento e Planejamento. In Meio Ambiente,
Desenvolvolvimento e Cidadania: Desafios Para as Cie ncias Sociais, E. Viola,
ed., pp. 4598. Sa o Paulo: Cortez.
Viola, E.
1987 O Movimento Ecologico no Brasil. In Ecologia e Poltica no Brasil, J.
Pa dua, ed., pp. 63109. Rio de Janeiro: IUPERJ.
Von Mettenheim, K.
1992 Democratic Theory and Electoral Representation: Trends Toward Direct
Democracy? Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburg, LASA.
Wood, D., and B. Gray
1991 Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science 27:139162.
Yuksel, F., B. Bramwell, and A. Yuksel
1999 Stakeholder Interviews and Tourism Planning at Pamukkale, Turkey.
Tourism Management 20:351360.
Submitted 2 June 2001. Resubmitted 17 September 2001. Accepted 29 November 2001. Final
version 12 February 2002. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Kit Jenkins

Partnership and Regional Tourism in Brazil: Federal University of Alagoas, Brazil Sheffield Hallam University, UK

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Partnership and Regional Tourism in Brazil: Federal University of Alagoas, Brazil Sheffield Hallam University, UK

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.

PARTNERSHIP AND REGIONAL

Resume: Les partenariats dans la planification pour le developpement regional peuvent

Lindemberg Medeiros de Araujo teaches environmental and development studies in the

of mutually acceptable proposals about how tourism should develop

features: groups are autonomous but interdependent; solutions

might also help to secure the goals of redistributing development and

mon in specific phases of joint working. Table 1 summarizes the

Table 1. Grays Framework of Issues and Phases in Partnership Development

Source: Adapted from Gray (1996:6164).

ism partnerships have rarely examined them in relation to the several

THE COSTA DOURADA PROJECT

Figure 1. The Costa Dourada Project, Brazil

systems, waste disposal, telecommunications, water supply, and elec-

PRODETUR/NE. The former has the broad aim of encouraging the

Alagoas, from published legislation, administrative acts, and technical

Context of the Costa Dourada Partnership

able political, administrative and financial instability of the government

Collaborative Working and Problem-Setting

Involvement of Stakeholders. According to Gray, successful collabor-

Role of the Convenor. Partnerships are often led by a convenor, and

and its commitment to working with a range of people. The Unit

Collaborative Working and Direction-Setting

Agenda-Setting. An important step in the negotiation process is set-

Exploring the Options. If actors involved in joint activities are to

(Healey 1997). As many as 21 of the 29 Costa Dourada partners

Reaching Agreements. The chances of collaborative partners reaching

larly, three of them highlighted the decision to begin the provision of

Collaborative Working and Implementation

on agreements already reached, and that this implementation requires

Dealing with Constituencies. Representatives of groups who are

Structuring. The structuring process involves institutionalizing the

It has been shown that regular attendance at the Costa Dourada

age local communities to look to their municipality to represent their

Working in Other Policymaking Networks

The members were regularly engaged in the collaborative process

may have increased the appeal of this partnership as an alternative

Figure 2. Processes Involved in a Tourism Development Partnership

developed country, it may also have relevance for partnerships at other

The framework indicates that attention should be paid to power differ-

AcknowledgementsThanks are due to CAPES of Brazils Ministry for Education and

You might also like