Tourism Management 47 (2015) 329e340

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Attracting international hotels: Locational factors that matter most

A. George Assaf a, *, Alexander Josiassen b, d, 1, Frank W. Agbola c, 2
a
Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, 90 Campus Center Way, 209A Flint Lab, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
b
Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Solbjerg Plads 3, C3.25, Denmark
c
Newcastle Business School, Faculty of Business and Law, University of Newcastle, Australia
d
School of Economics, Finance & Marketing, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s

We assess the factors that attract international hotels to tourism destinations.

T&T welcomeness and the quality of infrastructure are the most significant factors.

The level of corruption and crime rate make a destination less attractive.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With the increased international competition facing hotel chains, it is essential that the next destination
Received 6 August 2013 they enter is the most attractive option possible. The host destinations too have a keen interest in
Accepted 7 October 2014 strategically positioning themselves in order to attract international hotels since their presence has
Available online 8 November 2014
several positive effects. Using, for the first time, actual on-location data we investigate the factors that
matter most for international hotels when selecting host destinations. Specifically, we identify 23 factors
Keywords:
that make a destination an attractive (or unattractive) location for international hotels. We then rank
Tourism destinations
these. The results show that welcomeness, infrastructure, and crime rate are the three most important
International hotel chains
Locational factors
factors that influence the location of international hotels in host destinations.
Hotel destination attractiveness © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction local hotel industry more competitive and assist by bringing in

In recent times, the growing importance of the tourism industry
globally has renewed interest in investigating which locational
factors attract international hotels to tourism destinations (Ramo
n
Rodríguez, 2002). This stems from the direct and indirect benefits
that international hotels confer on the local hotel industry and the
local economy in general. For instance, the hotel industry in China
has gained significantly from direct inward foreign investments by
international hotels both in terms of capital assets and manage-
ment know-how (Gu, Ryan, & Yu, 2012). In China and other desti-
nations, international hotels have assisted in the creation of jobs,
advancement of technologies and improvement of living standards
(Gu et al., 2012; Go, Pine, & Yu, 1994). There is also growing evi-
dence that through a spill-over effect, international hotels make the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 4135451492.
E-mail addresses: assaf@isenberg.umass.edu (A.G. Assaf), aj.marktg@cbs.dk
(A. Josiassen), Frank.Agbola@newcastle.edu.au (F.W. Agbola).
1
Tel.: þ45 3815 2159.
2 3
Tel.: þ61 (02) 4921 2048.
“more highly diversified hotel products as defined by brands and
market segments” (Gu et al., 2012, p. 58). Domestic hotels can
benefit from the presence of international hotels both by learning
their managerial practices and through recruiting some of their
staff. Research on the MICE industry3 suggests that the presence of
premium international hotels is an important factor when deciding
where to hold their congress, conference, or other business meet-
ings (Wan, 2011). The reputation and brand image of international
hotels can also help destinations improve their international
attractiveness and competitiveness (Assaf & Josiassen, 2012; Laws,
1995; Tsai, Song, & Wong, 2009).
Consequently, it is logical that destinations wish to attract in-
ternational hotels. However, as hotels have become more selective
in their destination choice due to the recent financial crisis and other
economic challenges, one important issue to address is how hotels
choose destinations, and the related question of how destinations
can make themselves more attractive to international hotels.
MICE refers to meetings, incentives, conferencing, and exhibitions.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.005
0261-5177/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
330 A.G. Assaf et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 329e340
Research devoted to this issue has identified several locational fac-
tors that hotel executives consider when selecting a particular
destination. These factors include, among others, the size and nature
of the city in which the hotel is located, the political stability of the
region, the infrastructure within the region, and the perception of
the region as an attractive business location. A seminal paper by
Dunning and Kundu (1995) was the first to highlight these locational
factors using the opinions of hotel executives from the US and other
international destinations as their data. Recent research by Johnson
and Vanetti (2005) also identified related factors using the opinions
of major hotel executives from Eastern Europe as their data.
Building on these two studies, the present paper aims to offer an
important extension to the current literature. We aim to test the
locational factors that make a destination a preference site for in-
ternational hotels using actual on-location data drawn from a large
sample of international tourist destinations. Though research by
Dunning and Kundu (1995) and Johnson and Vanetti (2005) iden-
tified key locational factors that hotel executives consider when
going international, they (a) did not rank the factors nor (b) use
concrete data. Hence, little is really known about the actual, rather
than the perceived, strength and nature of the relationship be-
tween these locational factors and the destination choice of inter-
national hotels. In other words, while the literature provides
executive opinion data about the locational factors of interest to
international hotels, our aim here is to go one step further and
collect concrete data on these factors and test and rank their
importance in making a destination more attractive to interna-
tional hotels. Such findings would have important implications for
both hotel operators and tourism destinations. For hotel operators,
for example, the findings will provide more precise guidance
regarding their next locational choices; for destinations, the find-
ings will help them to focus resources (such as time, expertize, and
brand equity) on the most significant locational factors.
To achieve the above, we adopt in this study a three-stage
approach. First, we build on the existing literature, in particular
studies by Dunning and Kundu (1995) and Johnson and Vanetti
(2005), to identify the locational factors that hotel operators
consider when selecting an international destination. Second, we
conduct interviews with hotel executives to validate these factors
and potentially identify any locational factors that may have
emerged since the two studies were carried out. Third we collect
hard data on all these locational factors and test whether and to
what extent they contribute to the presence of international hotels
in a particular destination. Our goal is to identify the most critical
locational factors that make a destination more or less attractive to
international hotels. We use a unique sample of international
destinations across several periods of time. From these destina-
tions, we collect concrete data on the various locational factors
previously identified and on the degree of concentration of inter-
national hotels at these destinations. Then, we develop a regression
model to test how each of these locational factors has contributed
to the concentration of international hotels at the destination.
Specifically, we examine an updated and large sample of 123 in-
ternational destinations spanning the years 2007e2011.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2
presents the research framework. Section 3 presents the research
design and analysis. Section 4 elaborates on the methods and the
data. Section 5 presents and discusses the results, and finally Sec-
tions 6 and 7 highlight the implications and provide directions for
future studies.
2. Research framework
Several theories have been proposed in the literature to explain
firms' internationalization and locational strategies. Economists
have largely focused on the theory of foreign direct investment
(FDI) and related sub-theories such as market imperfection theory,
international production theory, and internationalization theory
(Byckley, 1983, 1988; Hymer, 1970). Recently, network theory has
also started to gain increased popularity (Burton, Kahler, &
Montgomery, 2009).
Central to these theories is firms' constant search for new
market opportunities, and firm internationalization which is
defined “as a strategy to capitalize on certain capabilities not shared
by competitors in foreign countries” (Morgan & Katsikeas, 1997, p.
70). The international production theory and internationalization
theory specifically argue that the motivation of a firm to interna-
tionalize will depend on the resource advantages available in its
home market in comparison to host locations. Firms, for instance,
are more attracted to markets that possess unique advantages in
terms of locations and other related resources, or which have
flexible government policies or markets (Dunning & Kundu, 1995).
Importantly, firms' internationalization behaviour also depends on
the benefits they receive from further internationalization activ-
ities. Firms will continue to internationalize “until the benefits of
further internationalization are outweighed by the costs” (Johnson
& Vanetti, 2005, p. 1079). Importantly, with more internationali-
zation activities, the networks4 that the firm develops with its
various stakeholders (e.g. customers, suppliers, competitors, gov-
ernments) become more integral to its success in international
markets.
Seminal papers by Dunning (1993) and Johnson and Vanetti
(2005) have built on the above theories to analyze the locational
strategies of firms in international markets. These theories, how-
ever, are not specifically focused on locational factors that help
attract firms to international markets. Consequently, Dunning
(1993) and Johnson and Vanetti (2005) developed an eclectic
paradigm to explain the locational choice of hotel companies in
such markets. This paradigm was introduced by John Dunning in a
series of papers (Dunning, 1993; Dunning & McQueen, 1982), in
which he claims that the international activities of multinational
firms are determined by three main pillars: ownership advantages
(O), location advantages (L), and internationalization advantages
(I).5 Hence, while internationalization theory does focus on the
choice of location, the eclectic paradigm is seen as more holistic as
it addresses three broader factors. The ownership advantages (e.g.
size of the firm, and international experience) refer to the advan-
tages of a firm seeking to engage in international activities, while
the internationalization advantages refer to the advantages that
companies “derive from the modality of foreign involvement
selected when going international” (Johnson & Vanetti, 2005, p.
1081). Finally, the location advantages are mainly derived from
destination-level analysis, and include specific host destination
advantages (e.g. quality of infrastructure, restrictions and regula-
tions and political stability, etc.) that can potentially affect firms'
internationalization activities and their investment behaviour
(Dunning, 1993). The eclectic paradigm has been rigorously tested
in the hotel industry and is perfectly suitable for the study of
location as it has location as one its three main pillars.
Follow Dunning (1993) and Johnson and Vanetti (2005), we
select the eclectic paradigm as our main theoretical framework for
the present research. As mentioned, our main objective is to use
concrete data to rank the locational factors that matter the most for
hotel firms when selecting international host destinations.
4
As underlined by the network theory, networks can take many forms, such as
strategic alliances, joint ventures, joint research and developments.
5
For this reason, the eclectic paradigm is also known as the OLI paradigm.
 A.G. Assaf et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 329e340 331

To achieve this, using the three-stage approach described above, The next stage involved ranking the factors according to how
we first identify the locational factors of interest to international strongly they contribute to increasing a location's attractiveness to
hotels. We draw these from the hotel and service literature, pri- international hotels. This stage represents our main point of de-
marily from studies that used the eclectic paradigm and related parture from Dunning (1993) and Johnson and Vanetti (2005).
theories (Assaf & Josiassen, 2012; Cho, 1983; Cole, Lee, & Their two studies used questionnaires filled in by hotel executives
McCullough, 2007; Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Dunning, 1993, 2001; to rank the importance of each of the locational factors in terms of
Dunning & Kundu, 1995; Johnson & Vanetti, 2005; Ko €nig, 2003; how they affect an international hotel. We apply a different
Miller & Parkhe, 1998; Moshirian, 2001; O'Gorman & McTiernan, methodology. Instead of using questionnaire ranking (Dunning,
2000). 1993; Johnson & Vanetti, 2005), we collect hard data on each of
In the second stage, we obtained further evidence regarding the locational factors identified from international destinations
location choice from a series of phone interviews which we con- where the selected international hotel firms are present. Then, we
ducted with the directors of development/directors of marketing of develop a regression model to test how each of these locational
leading international hotel companies. The goal of these interviews factors has contributed to increasing the concentration of interna-
was twofold: First, to confirm the factors identified in the literature tional hotels at the destination. Our goal is to provide hard evidence
review, and second, to find any locational factors that were not to add to the current literature of hotel internationalization activ-
identified by the literature. The hotel industry is highly dynamic ities. We elaborate more in the next sections on the sources of data
and has gone through recent changes due to the financial crisis and and the modelling approach.
its strain on private and corporate clients' available resources for
travel. We considered it therefore possible that some new loca- 3. Pillars of locational attractiveness
tional considerations might have emerged since the last study
conducted on the topic by Johnson and Vanetti (2005). We con- The factors which are believed to affect a location's attractive-
ducted 14 interviews with the directors of development/directors ness to international hotels were drawn mostly from the extant
of marketing of major hotel companies such as JW Marriott, Hyatt literature, but also supported by the interviews. They can be
and Best Western. To select the interview participants we followed grouped into seven broad pillars. In this section, we discuss each of
the methodology of Johnson and Vanetti (2005) focussing on hotel the pillars in some detail.
firms with a strong presence in international markets. The above
listed hotel companies are all well known internationally, and 3.1. Quality of tourism and related infrastructure
continuously seeking new locations for their foreign investments.
We asked each director (in an open-ended question) to provide Research on the eclectic paradigm has identified quality of
a list of locational factors that were considered important when infrastructure (e.g. information and communication technology,
selecting an international destination for their foreign investments. ground transport and air transport) as one of the most important
The final list of factors contained those that we identified in the locational considerations for hotel management when selecting a
literature review supplemented several others identified by the particular host market (Dunning, 1993; Johnson & Vanetti, 2005;
informants. Overall, there was very large agreement between the O'Gorman & McTiernan, 2000). The literature is in agreement
factors identified by either approach, and we arrived at a pool of 23 that when there is an infrastructure difference between the home
factors. We then grouped these locational factors under 7 main destination and the host destination, “management will be less
headings or pillars using the approach adopted by related studies in willing to commit resources because the outcome is less certain
the literature (Assaf & Josiassen, 2012; Crouch & Ritchie, 1999). and a learning-curve effect may have to take place” (Brouthers,
Each pillar consists of a set of locational factors that are potential Brouthers, & Werner, 1996, p. 380). In addition, inferior quality of
sources of attracting international hotels. We ended up with 7 infrastructure may affect access to, and cost and availability of,
pillars, covering the 23 factors, as listed in Table 1. Rather than complementary resources that hotels usually seek to obtain in in-
analyzing each of the factors separately, we discuss them grouped ternational markets (Cuervo-Cazurra, Maloney, & Manrakhan,
into the pillars (see next section). 2007). Research also indicates that some types of infrastructure,
particularly telecommunication, can affect the willingness of ser-
vice firms to invest in R&D operations overseas (Brouthers et al.,
Table 1 1996). Service firms often find that locations with strong tele-
Pillars of locational factors. communication competitiveness are more attractive for their op-
1st Pillar: quality of tourism 2nd Pillar: opportunities for tourism erations (Boutellier, Gassmann, & von Zedtwitz, 1997).
and related infrastructure 1. Growth of the tourism industry Thirteen of our interview participants nominated quality of
1. Quality of transport 2. Performance of the hotel industry infrastructure as a key criterion for the choice of location of a hotel
infrastructure 3. Size of host economy
as easy access for customers is important. This was mentioned as
2. Quality of internet 4. Growth rate of host economy
infrastructure 5. Travel and tourism welcomeness being important both when choosing a destination city, and also
3. Tourism attractions 6. Government expenditure on travel when choosing where in the city to situate the hotel. A major
and tourism (T&T) highway or an airport close by, were considered important factors
3rd Pillar: quality of human 4th Pillar: restrictions and regulations when making the decision to enter.
resources 1. Time required to start a new hotel
1. Quality of local labour 2. Cost to start a new hotel
The competitiveness literature also links the quality of the
2. Flexibility in hiring 3. Prevalence of foreign ownership infrastructure to the attractiveness of the host destination (Crouch
foreign labour 4. Property rights & Ritchie, 1999; Khadaroo & Seetanah, 2007). The size and quality
5. Tax rate of the infrastructure, for example, impacts positively on the degree
5th Pillar: political stability 6th Pillar: cultural and development
of customer loyalty to a tourism destination (Faulkner, Oppermann,
1. Crime rate proximity
2. Level of corruption 1. Cultural distance & Fredline, 1999; Beerli & Martín, 2004). Destinations that suffer
3. Government instability 2. Level of development from poor quality infrastructure have usually low quality tourism,
7th Pillar: price advantage affecting their ability to accommodate for large tourism demand
1 Consumer price index (Briassoulis, 2002). Thus, for international hotels in particular, the
2 Exchange rate
quality of the infrastructure will not only affect their ability to
332 A.G. Assaf et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 329e340
benefit from resources in international markets, but also their
ability to attract customers.
3.2. Opportunities for tourism
The eclectic paradigm clearly indicates that “opportunities for
tourism” is an important influence on international hotels' choice
of a host location (Dunning, 1993; Johnson & Vanetti, 2005). All the
interview participants stressed the importance of this issue. One
executive declared that a hotel “should be located where the
tourists are”. More attractive destinations have a high tourism
potential (e.g. size and growth rate of the tourism industry) and
receive stronger investment from governments (Barros et al., 2011;
Chen, 2007, 2010). These markets also enjoy greater access to
tourism related resources (Assaf & Josiassen, 2012). The relation-
ship between tourism growth and hotel performance also supports
this notion. Chen (2007), for instance, showed that improved
tourism growth could improve the financial performance of Chi-
nese hotel firms. Similar findings were reported by Chen (2010) in
the context of Taiwanese hotels. Other studies have highlighted
that strong tourism growth can boost the business environment
available for tourism-related firms such as hotels (Balaguer &
Cantavella-Jorda, 2002; Dritsakis, 2004; Gunduz & Hatemi-J,
2005; Kim, Chen, & Jang, 2006). Recent industry reports (City
Travel Briefing-Dubai, 2009), for example, have shown that hotels
in destinations with high tourism potential such as the United Arab
Emirates perform better than other tourism-saturated destinations.
Some informants stressed the importance of the host government
supporting their entry into the destination. The informants also
made it clear that if the local “people are very welcoming of tour-
ists” that is a valuable destination asset and attracts visitors to the
destination and their hotel.
3.3. Quality of human resources
The quality of human resources is often cited as an important
consideration for hotels when selecting an international location
(Demirbag, Tatoglu, & Glaister, 2007). The eclectic paradigm also
stresses the importance of having access to high quality inputs,
including human resources (Dunning, 1993). Host destinations
with highly qualified human capital can help firms reduce training
expenses and obviate the need to expatriate labour from home
markets. Moreover, having high quality human resources in the
host destination helps upgrade firms' value chain, significantly
improving overall performance and giving firms a competitive
advantage (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Martell & Carroll, 1995; Tayeb,
1995). This is particularly the case with service firms, like hotels,
which are labour intensive and rely heavily on the quality of labour
to enhance the level of the services provided. If hotels do not
possess high quality human resources, they cannot provide the
level of service that their customers expect.
Most of our interview participants (8 out of 14) also highlighted
the importance of having access to high quality human resources to
manage their hotels. They further noted the importance of the host
destination having legislation in place to make it easy to bring
expatriate executive talent into the destination to fill specific gaps
in executive management skill and expertise. The two locational
factors we list in Table 1 reflect these two issues. The first measures
the quality of local labour and the second measures the ease of
hiring foreign labour in a host destination.
3.4. Restrictions and regulations
Most of our interview participants (11 out of 14) confirmed what
several studies (Javalgi, Griffith, & White, 2003) have pointed out
that “host destination restrictions and regulations” on hotel com-
panies when expanding internationally are an important consid-
eration. In many destinations, service companies are impeded in
their ability to operate efficiently due to strict government controls
(Capar & Kotabe, 2003). Such constraints include, but are not
limited to, ownership restrictions, poor protection of property
rights and favourable regulation for domestic rivals (Contractor,
1990; Knight, 1999).
Hotel companies are therefore more likely to select host des-
tinations that have flexible policies towards foreign investments
(Buckley et al., 2007). The eclectic theory and related literature
support the argument that higher flexibility in government pol-
icies toward foreign companies can provide a setting which pro-
motes firm growth and removes unnecessary restrictions or
burdens (Brewer, 1993; Child & Yan, 2003; Dhanaraj & Beamish,
2004; Wheeler & Mody, 1992). The role of government is also
important in terms of facilitating the delivery of and competition
for resources through regulating and deregulating capital mar-
kets, foreign exchange controls, offering corporate tax and other
incentives, and monitoring the internal competition in the in-
dustry. Flexible government policies “can also benefit the hotel
industry in terms of attracting international tourism projects, and
in terms of facilitating the transport of tourists in and out of the
destination” (Assaf & Josiassen, 2012, p. 393). The presence of
these factors is expected to improve hotel demand and increase
the sources of revenue.
3.5. Political stability
Due to its direct impact on hotel demand, political stability is well
grounded in the eclectic theory as one of the most important con-
siderations for hotels when selecting a host location (Dunning, 1993;
Johnson & Vanetti, 2005). Studies on return visitation indicate that
tourists are likely to be deterred from travelling or returning to a
destination that is marred by political instability (Alegre & Cladera,
2006). Outside tourism, several authors have also highlighted the
potential impact of political stability on the performance of inter-
national firms (Brouthers, Brouthers, & Werner, 2000; Levis, 1979).
Such problems can deter firm growth, hinder the transfer of re-
sources, and create competitive problems (Lim, 2001).
Several of our participants (5 out of 14) cautioned that a hotel
must carefully observe the political climate before making entry
decisions. Political stability has a significant influence on an inter-
national firm's internal operational costs (Cho, 1988). Hotels in a
politically unstable destination might not be able to sustain a
strong customer base or create enough business opportunities to
realize economies of scale and scope in the long term.
3.6. Cultural distance
Studies using the eclectic paradigm have discussed the impor-
tance of cultural proximity6 for firms expanding internationally
(Barkema, Bell, & Pennings, 1996; Johanson & Vahlne, 1990). Our
interviewees also mentioned the importance of this factor. Four of
them noted that they preferred to enter a particular destination
because they already were represented in a neighbouring desti-
nation so the cultural challenges they would face would be easier to
overcome.
The literature also notes the importance of cultural distance.
Most Spanish hotel companies, for example, started their interna-
tionalization by entering Latin America (Ramo
n Rodríguez, 2002).
6
Cultural proximity, defined as the degree to which the cultural norms in one
destination are similar to those in another destination.
 A.G. Assaf et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 329e340 333

Generally, there is an assumption that a greater cultural distance
can increase the cost of entry, limit operational benefits, increase
the agency cost, and hinder the firm's ability to transfer resources
and core competences to international markets. Hence, hotels may
be reluctant to internationalize to destinations that are culturally
distant from their home country.
The level of economic development of the host destination is
also well grounded in the eclectic paradigm as one of the key
locational factors for hotels when selecting a destination (Dunning,
1993). Most of our interview participants also stressed the impor-
tance of this factor (12 out of 14). The argument is that when a firm
internationalizes to a destination of similar economic development,
it enjoys a higher level of performance than when international-
izing to a destination of a different level of economic development
(Assaf et al., 2012). Developed destinations, for example, have more
developed infrastructure, different types of customers, and more
sophisticated marketing channels than developing destinations.
These factors indicate that the level of development might affect
the attractiveness of a particular destination.
3.7. Price advantage
The price competitiveness of a particular destination is another
important determinant that affects a hotel's locational choice. Most of
our interview participants (12 out of 14), emphasized that the general
price level in the host destination affects the hotel's ability to be more
internationally competitive. The eclectic paradigm also highlights the
importance of having access to low cost resources when selecting
international locations. Further, hotel demand is also sensitive to the
destination's price competitiveness due to its impact on tourism
demand and return intention (Barros & Machado, 2010; Peypoch,
Randriamboarison, Rasoamananjara, & Solonandrasana, 2012).
From the point of view of both the cost of resources and tourist de-
mand, hotels may be more attracted to cheaper destinations.

Table 2
Locational factors and measures.

Variable Description Sources of data (period)

Quality of transport infrastructure
Quality of internet infrastructure
Tourism attractions
Growth of the tourism industry
Performance of the hotel industry
Size of host economy
Growth rate of host economy
Travel and tourism welcomeness
Government expenditure on
travel and tourism (T&T)
Quality of local labour
Flexibility in hiring foreign labour
Time required to start a new hotel
Cost to start a new hotel
Prevalence of foreign ownership
Property rights
Crime rate
Level of corruption
Government instability
Cultural distance
Level of development
Consumer price index
Tax rate
Exchange rate
Quality of transport (road, airport, airline and port) in the
destination measured as an index from 1 to 7
Quality of ICT infrastructure in the destination measured as
an index from 1 to 7
Sum of world heritage natural and cultural sites
Percentage change in international tourism arrivals
averaged over the 5 years preceding each year in our
sample.
Revenue per available room (RevPAR) in the country
GDP per capita
Real GDP growth rate averaged over the 5 years preceding
each year in our sample.
Attitude of population toward foreign visitors measured as
an index from 1 to 7.
T&T government expenditure as a percentage of total
government budget
Measured as an index from 1 to 7 based on three factors:
quality of the educational system, local availability of
specialized research and training services and extent of
staff training.
The extent by which a destination limits the ability to hire
foreign labour measured as an index from 1 to 7
Number of days required to start a business
Cost to start a business as a percentage of the economy's
income (GNI) per capita
Prevalence of foreign ownership of companies in the
destination measured as an index from 1 to 7
Extent of protection of property rights in the destination,
including financial assets, measured as an index from 1 to 7
Intentional homicide, count and rate per 100,000
population
Perceived level of corruption in the destination
An index that reflects perceptions of the likelihood that the
government will be destabilized or overthrown by
unconstitutional or violent means, including politically-
motivated violence and terrorism.
Measured as the cultural distance of each destination from
the US using the Kogut and Singh's (1988) cultural index.
The US was chosen as a base given that most international
hotel companies originate from the US.
A dummy variable that takes a value of 1 if the country is a
developed country and zero otherwise.
An index that reflect changes in the price level of a market
basket of consumer goods and services purchased by
households.
The amount of taxes and mandatory contributions borne
by the business expressed as a share of commercial profit.
IMF based exchanged rate
World Economic Forum e The Travel & Tourism
Competitiveness Report (2007e2011)
World Economic Forum e The Travel & Tourism
Competitiveness Report (2007e2011)
UNESCO e World Heritage List (2007e2011)
Euromonitor International e World Tourism Organization
Data (2007e2011)
Euromonitor International e World Tourism
Organization Data (2007e2011)
The World Bank e GDP per capita (2007e2011)
Central Intelligence Agency e The World Factbook
(2007e2011)
World Economic Forum e The Travel & Tourism
Competitiveness Report (2007e2011)
World Economic Forum e The Travel & Tourism
Competitiveness Report (2007e2011)
World Economic Forum e The Travel & Tourism
Competitiveness Report (2007e2011)
World Economic Forum e The Travel & Tourism
Competitiveness Report (2007e2011)
The World Bank e Doing Business (2007e2011)
The World Bank e Doing Business (2007e2011)
World Economic Forum e The Travel & Tourism
Competitiveness Report (2007e2011)
World Economic Forum e The Travel & Tourism
Competitiveness Report (2007e2011)
UNODC e Global Study on Homicide (2007e2011)
Transparency International e Corruption Perceptions
Index (2007e2011)
The World Bank e The Worldwide Governance Indicators
Project (2007e2011)
The Hofstede Centre e Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions
(2007e2011)
The Foundation for International Development Study and
Research (Ferdi) (2007e2011)
The World Bank e Consumer Price Index (2007e2011)
The World Bank e Total tax rate (2007e2011)
International Monetary Fund e Exchange Rate Data
(2007e2011)

Notes: all data for this study can be obtained from the authors upon request.
334 A.G. Assaf et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 329e340

4. Data Table 3
List of destinations included in the sample.

Our goal in this paper is to measure to what extent each of the
locational factors contributes to increasing the attractiveness of a
host destination to international hotels. We deem a destination that
has a higher concentration of international hotels to be more
attractive. We focus on two measures of international hotel con-
centration: international hotel rooms per capita and degree of
internationalization (international rooms as a percentage of total
supply). International hotel rooms per capita is a standard measure
adopted in the hotel industry and also seems in line with measures
adopted in related industries (Glaeser, Kolko, & Saiz, 2001).7 We
discussed these two measures with our interview participants. We
also took the opinion of executives from two leading hospitality
research companies: Smith Travel Research and Euromonitor
International.
Data on both international rooms per capita and degree of
internationalization were collected from Smith Travel Research and
a sample of 123 international host destinations was obtained. To
obtain verifiable data on each of the locational factors in Table 1, we
used an extensive data collection procedure that covered 14 data-
bases, namely the World Bank, World Economic Forum, Euro-
monitor International, DeloitteeSTR Global and Smith Travel
Research, CIA World Factbook, World Travel and Tourism Council,
United Nations World Tourism Organization, United Nation Office
on Drugs, Transparency International, Hofstede's Cultural Dimen-
sion and the Foundation for Advanced on International Develop-
ment. We provide in Table 2 more detailed explanation on the
sources of data collection, as well as a short definition of each factor.
Data on all the above variables were then collected from the
sample of international host destinations. Most data ranged from
the years 2007 through 2011. In total we have an unbalanced panel
sample of 584 observations as for some destinations data were not
available for all years in the sample. The destinations included in
this study are covered in Table 3. We also provide in Table 4
descriptive statistics of all variables included in our model.8
Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina
Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El
Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Korea, Kuwait,
Latvia, Lesotho, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar,
Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia,
Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay,
Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi
Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa,
Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, China,
Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda,
Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay,
Venezuela, Vietnam, Zimbabwe.
dependent variable (Model 2). The results from Model 1 indicate
that the variables with significant impact are: Quality of transport
infrastructure, growth of the tourism industry, size of host econ-
omy, growth rate of host economy, travel and tourism welcome-
ness, government expenditures on travel and tourism, level of
corruption, crime rate and level of development. Furthermore, all
these variables seem to have the correct impact. For example, the
measure for international rooms per capita seems to increase with
the quality of transport infrastructure, growth of the tourism in-
dustry, size of host economy, growth rate of host economy,
welcomeness, and government expenditures on travel and tourism,
and decreases with the crime rate and level of corruption. Devel-
oped destinations seem also to attract more international hotels
than developing destinations.
The results from Model 2 are largely in line with Model 1, except
for level of development and level of corruption which became
insignificant in Model 2. This is not however fully surprising as the
international rooms per capita and degree of internationalization

5. Results
Table 4
As mentioned, we use in this paper two different outcome Descriptive statistics of all model variables.
variables: international rooms per capita and degree of interna-
Variable Obs Mean Std. dev.
tionalization. For each variable we estimate a separate regression
model using all locational factors in Table 2. As we have panel data, International hotel rooms per 584 0.8490 1.3202
capita
we conduct all estimations in a panel regression framework using a Degree of internationalization 584 0.5563 0.6850
random effect framework.9 Before estimating the models we also Quality of transport infrastructure 584 4.1438 1.1830
checked the correlation matrix and calculated the VIF coefficients Quality of internet infrastructure 584 3.1895 1.2811
and confirmed that collinearity was not a problem. For example, Tourism attractions 584 7.8226 10.3985
Growth of the tourism industry 584 2.8341 5.8276
Table 5 which reports the correlation matrix for all locational fac-
Performance of the hotel industry 584 138.92 91.06
tors shows that high correlation is not a problem for most Size of host ECONOMY 584 15,218.58 20,054.33
relationships. Growth rate of host economy 584 4.4486 3.3744
We report in Table 6 the regression results. In the first part of the Travel and tourism welcomeness 584 6.2350 0.5470
table we show the model that uses international rooms per capita Government expenditure on 584 4.0965 3.0557
travel and tourism
as a dependent variable (Model 1), and in the second part we show Quality of labour 584 3.9050 0.0340
the model that uses the degree of internationalization as a Flexibility of hiring foreign labour 584 4.4460 0.0311
Time required to start a new hotel 584 32.7586 53.7462
Cost to start a new hotel 584 31.6181 49.7772
7 Prevalence of foreign ownership 584 4.8837 0.8573
The number of international rooms as a percentage of total supply is important
Property rights 584 4.5200 1.1048
as it may suggest where international hotels are underpenetrated. It is also possible
Crime rate 584 4.8102 0.9202
to consider the number of international rooms per tourist. However, this has to be
Level of corruption 584 12.5341 18.6961
used with caution as not all tourists stay at a hotel and that % penetration would
Government stability 584 0.0890 0.8294
vary between destinations.
8 Cultural distance 584 20.6762 34.5813
While we understand that there are some destinations that have a significantly
Level of development 584 0.8528 0.3531
higher level of international hotel concentration than others, we preferred to leave
Consumer price index 584 6.0213 5.5370
in all destinations in order to enrich the variability of the regression model.
9 Tax rate 584 23.3371 8.8015
The results from the Hausman test provided further support for the random
Exchange rate 584 477.1566 1936.6260
effect over the fixed effect.
 A.G. Assaf et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 329e340 335

Table 5
Correlation matrix for all model variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

1 1.0
2 0.7 1.0
3 0.2 0.3 1.0
4 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.0
5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.0
6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.0
7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0
9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0
10 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.0
11 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.0
12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.0
13 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0
14 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.0
15 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0
16 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0
17 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.0
18 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0
19 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.3 1.0
20 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0
21 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.0
22 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.3 1.0
23 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.0

measure different aspects of the international attractiveness of a surprising that people in these destinations have a very positive
tourism destination. For all significant variables, again we found attitude toward foreign companies. Finally, as indicated in Table 8
that they are in line with the literature. For example, the attrac- most of these destinations along with other destinations such the
tiveness of a destination to international hotels seems to increase UK, Norway and Finland have low crime rates and a low level of
with the quality of transport infrastructure, growth of the tourism corruption which can also help to attract international hotels. This
industry, size of the host economy, growth rate of host economy, is also evidenced by the fact that they have a strong prevalence of
welcomeness, and government expenditures on travel and tourism, foreign companies in their economy.
and decreases with the crime rate.10
Finally, we provide in Table 7 the elasticity of each of the sig-
6. Implications
nificant determinants for both Models 1 and 2. This will allow us to
rank the importance of each determinant in terms of its contribu-
As discussed, both the international hotels and the destinations
tion to a destination's international attractiveness (i.e. international
themselves have a strong interest in identifying the most important
rooms per capita or degree of internationalization). The locational
locational factors. International hotels face tough and increasing
factors in Table 7 are listed in order based on their percentage
competition, making it essential for managers involved in firm
contribution. Both Models 1 & 2 seem to indicate that the most
strategy-making to identify the most important locational factors
positively impacting factors are travel and tourism welcomeness,
for choosing an attractive destination to expand to. Hotel man-
quality of transport infrastructure, prevalence of foreign ownership
agement can also employ this framework to identify which desti-
and size of host economy. Crime rate on the other hand seems to be
nations score highly on these factors, thus making them attractive
the most negatively impacting factor for both models.
for the hotel to operate in.
Finally, in Table 8, we provide ranking of each of the destinations
Public policy makers of destinations try “to identify key leverage
included in our sample on some of the most significant factors we
points where their strategies and interventions are most likely to
identified in Table 7. This should provide richer interpretation of
maximize overall performance for their destination” (Assaf &
our findings and provide more guidance on where international
Josiassen, 2012, p. 395). One of these is likely to be a strategy to
hotels are concentrated. We can see, for example, that Switzerland,
attract international hotels. Our findings indicate that several
the UAE, Germany, Singapore and Hong Kong dominate the ranking
locational factors influence a destination's attractiveness to inter-
on the quality of transport infrastructure, providing further justi-
national hotels. Among these, we identified the most important
fications why these countries are usually highly attractive to in-
factors using an elasticity coefficient. Travel and tourism
ternational hotels. The tourism competitiveness report also
welcomeness had the highest coefficient. This is an important
emphasizes that these countries perform well on transport infra-
finding which public policy makers can use when forming strate-
structure. Such high-quality infrastructure makes them an attrac-
gies and when allocating resources. When comparing the variables,
tive site for international hotels.
one interesting issue became apparent; rather than an increase in
These destinations along with other popular destinations such
the amount of resources of the destination, how the resources are
as New Zealand, Canada, Thailand and Australia also score very well
allocated is the more critical aspect. Government expenditure by
on “Travel and tourism welcomeness”. With tourism accounting for
itself, for example, actually has only a limited effect. The best use of
a significant proportion of their economic activity, it is not
resources seems to be towards an effort to improve welcomeness.
This may be a complex and difficult endeavour but if done suc-
cessfully it is likely to have significant rewards for the destination.
10
Note that we also conducted some robustness checks by eliminating randomly
Tourism infrastructure came up as the second most important
destinations from the sample but we did not find significant differences in the variable. Destinations with a more efficient infrastructure are more
results. likely to result in higher satisfaction of tourists, and in turn they
336 A.G. Assaf et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 329e340

Table 6 variable for increasing the attractiveness of a destination to inter-

Impact of locational factors on international rooms per capita and degree of national hotels. The resulting framework and the identified factors
internationalization.
could guide future research in the area, and assist stakeholders
Locational factor Dependent variable involved in the management of tourism destinations. Finally, the
International rooms Degree of study provides a useful blueprint for studies of internationalization
per capita internationalization attractiveness factors in other industries.
Coefficient T-ratio Coefficient T-ratio
7. Concluding remarks
Quality of transport 0.261 3.971** 0.154 4.423**
infrastructure
Quality internet 0.032 0.461 0.004 0.111 This study identified and ranked locational factors that affect the
infrastructure attractiveness of a host destination to international hotels. We
Tourism attractions 0.003 0.622 0.000 0.095 assessed the impact of each locational factor on international
Growth of the tourism 0.013 2.153** 0.005 2.355**
industry
rooms per capita and the degree of internationalization in two
Performance of the hotel 0.002 1.501 0.002 2.000** separate random effect regression models. The results indicated a
industry high level of consistency between the models. For instance, both
Size of host economy 0.000 8.699** 0.000 8.434** models showed that factors such as welcomeness, quality of
Growth rate of host 0.023 1.9241* 0.013 1.935**
transport infrastructure, the prevalence of foreign ownership and
economy
Travel and tourism 0.251 2.234** 0.118 1.986** the size of the host economy have the most significant impact on
welcomeness attracting international hotels to a tourism destination. Crime rate
Government expenditure 0.031 2.388** 0.014 1.851* on the other hand seems to be the most negatively impacting factor
on travel and tourism for both models.
Quality of labour 0.042 0.311 0.077 0.927
Flexibility of hiring foreign 0.203 1.287 0.114 1.347
We emphasized the important academic and industry contri-
labour butions of this study. Our main argument is that while some studies
Time required to start a 0.001 0.714 0.000 1.000 have identified the locational factors that affect hotel executives'
new hotel choice of international destinations, none has tested the true impact
Cost to start a new hotel 0.002 1.601 0.001 1.203
of these factors using verifiable data drawn from tourism destina-
Prevalence of foreign 0.143 2.224** 0.075 2.249**
ownership tions. This study also provides decision-makers at tourism desti-
Property rights 0.082 0.964 0.048 1.061 nations with a clear framework to help them understand which
Crime rate 0.166 2.239** 0.089 2.305** factors boost their chances of attracting international hotels. This in
Level of corruption 0.004 2.000** 0.002 1.459 turn aids in making fundamental business decisions, such as how to
Government instability 0.045 0.403 0.007 0.105
Cultural distance 0.001 1.183 0.001 1.334
allocate influence and resources among a variety of factors present
Level of development 0.232 1.765* 0.113 1.538 at the destination. The results serve as an important input for hotel
Consumer price index 0.009 1.192 0.003 0.637 operators when seeking their next international destination.
Tax rate 0.001 0.235 0.002 0.751
Exchange rate 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.050
8. Limitations and opportunities for future research
**Significant at the 5% level, *significant at the 1% level.
The study suffers from important limitations that need to be
addressed in future research. First, in this study we surveyed the
may spend more money at the destination, and be more likely to opinion of the directors of development/directors of marketing to
revisit. Crime rate is also strongly related to how attractive inter- identify the location factors. However, it would be interesting to
national hotels find the destination. Lowering the crime rate may investigate the perspectives of investors since they will often be
be a way in which certain destinations can gain considerably heavily involved in making such locational decisions. Hence, future
relative to their competitors. Similarly, destinations with an already studies might consider supplementing the present findings with
low crime rate have a strong incentive to make sure the crime rate the perspective of investors.
stays low. A second limitation relates to the quality of some the variables
An important advantage of this study is that the results are used. For example, we used in this study the number of UNESCO
generally based on ‘hard’ data. We urge scholars to further inves- World Heritage Sites as a reflection on tourism attractions. How-
tigate the issue of how to manage, maintain, and increase travel and ever, some important destinations have none or few of these at-
tourism welcomeness as this appears to be the most important tractions. This is noteworthy when interpreting the results of this

Table 7
Elasticity of key locational factors that impact on attractiveness of tourist destinations.

Dependent variable: international rooms per capita Dependent variable: degree of internationalization

Locational factor Elasticity Locational factor Elasticity

Travel and tourism welcomeness 1.666 Travel and tourism welcomeness 1.855
Quality of transport infrastructure 1.293 Quality of transport infrastructure 1.000
Prevalence of foreign ownership 0.895 Prevalence of foreign ownership 0.996
Size of host economy 0.360 Size of host economy 0.441
Level of development 0.223 Growth rate of host economy 0.153
Government expenditure on travel and tourism 0.203 Performance of the hotel industry 0.126
Government expenditure on travel and tourism 0.111
Growth rate of host economy 0.135 Growth of the tourism industry 0.042
Growth of the tourism industry 0.047 Crime rate 0.928
Level of corruption 0.005
Crime rate 1.071
 A.G. Assaf et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 329e340 337

Table 8
Ranking of destinations (from best to worst) based on selected locational factors.

Quality of transport infrastructure Travel and tourism welcomeness Prevalence of foreign ownership Crime rate Level of corruption

Hong Kong New Zealand Slovakia Finland Singapore

Singapore Hong Kong Singapore Switzerland New Zealand
Germany Canada Hong Kong Norway Denmark
UAE Tunisia Uruguay Hong Kong Sweden
Switzerland Thailand Sweden Sweden Finland
Denmark Singapore Luxembourg Malta Canada
Netherlands Austria UK Denmark Netherlands
France Syria New Zealand Germany Switzerland
Norway Portugal Chile Luxembourg Australia
New Zealand Morocco Hungary Austria Norway
Sweden Ireland Canada Singapore Luxembourg
Barbados Burkina Faso Ireland Ireland Hong Kong
Belgium Bahrain Belgium New Zealand Ireland
Finland Mauritius Panama Belgium Germany
Qatar Georgia Bahrain Netherlands Austria
Czech Republic Uganda Switzerland Oman Japan
South Africa Switzerland France Japan Barbados
Puerto Rico Macedonia Australia France Qatar
Bahrain Sweden Costa Rica Australia UK
Malta Barbados Peru Uruguay Chile
Korea Malta Mexico Portugal US
Canada Brazil Finland Canada Belgium
Panama Greece Norway Estonia Uruguay
Austria UAE Qatar Cyprus France
Chile Turkey Netherlands Chile Estonia
Thailand Mali Spain Qatar Slovenia
Luxembourg Kenya Botswana Slovenia UAE
Malaysia Finland Puerto Rico UK Cyprus
Australia Norway Gambia Kuwait Spain
Spain Montenegro Namibia Croatia Israel
US Jamaica Austria Bahrain Portugal
El Salvador Egypt Argentina Barbados Taiwan
UK Jordan Uganda Romania Puerto Rico
Jordan Mexico Germany Spain Botswana
Israel Senegal Taiwan Montenegro Malta
Tunisia Philippines El Salvador Taiwan Mauritius
Egypt Croatia Guatemala Bosnia Korea
Oman Cyprus South Africa Macedonia Poland
Latvia Nepal Denmark Czech Republic Oman
Cyprus Gambia Czech Republic Hungary Costa Rica
Turkey Belgium Cameroon Mauritius Lithuania
Saudi Arabia Australia Tunisia Albania Bahrain
Greece Puerto Rico US Israel Saudi Arabia
Jamaica Luxembourg Jamaica Georgia Jordan
Ethiopia Ethiopia UAE Slovakia Hungary
Guatemala Albania Estonia Italy Czech Republic
Portugal Tajikistan Honduras Poland South Africa
Ireland Spain Montenegro Saudi Arabia Kuwait
Taiwan Costa Rica Barbados Latvia Turkey
Japan Colombia Israel UAE Namibia
Namibia Malaysia Indonesia Tajikistan Malaysia
Mauritius South Africa Malaysia Tunisia Tunisia
Kenya Cameroon Senegal Azerbaijan Slovakia
Albania Benin Jordan China Latvia
Azerbaijan Uruguay Thailand Lithuania Macedonia
Gambia Taiwan Mongolia Puerto Rico Croatia
Sri Lanka Swaziland Lesotho Korea Italy
Slovenia Serbia Poland US Georgia
Mexico Germany Latvia Costa Rica Romania
Kuwait Cambodia Malta Jordan Montenegro
Hungary Azerbaijan Albania Moldova Brazil
Morocco Netherlands Romania Serbia Panama
Uruguay Moldova Kenya Mongolia El Salvador
Indonesia Madagascar Mozambique Vietnam Bulgaria
Honduras UK Mauritius Syria Thailand
India Namibia Portugal Senegal Serbia
Croatia Israel Morocco Panama Peru
Estonia Oman Brazil Indonesia Lesotho
Ecuador Estonia Greece Greece Greece
Senegal Slovenia Cyprus Swaziland Colombia
Peru Mozambique Sri Lanka Brazil China
China India India India Morocco
Costa Rica France Swaziland Argentina Jamaica
(continued on next page)
338 A.G. Assaf et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 329e340

Table 8 (continued )

Quality of transport infrastructure Travel and tourism welcomeness Prevalence of foreign ownership Crime rate Level of corruption

Pakistan Bosnia Saudi Arabia Cambodia India

Cambodia Peru Turkey Bulgaria Albania
Italy Chile Oman Ukraine Swaziland
Georgia Romania Nigeria Morocco Sri Lanka
Nicaragua Sri Lanka Georgia Malaysia Guatemala
Vietnam El Salvador Benin Namibia Gambia
Colombia Kazakhstan Cambodia Botswana Bosnia
Bulgaria Japan Colombia Gambia Mexico
Montenegro Denmark Azerbaijan Sri Lanka Egypt
Mozambique Italy Nicaragua Nicaragua Burkina Faso
Brazil Czech Republic Tanzania Ecuador Senegal
Botswana Mauritania Bosnia Thailand Moldova
Kazakhstan Bangladesh Japan Burkina Faso Kazakhstan
Benin Vietnam Lithuania Zimbabwe Argentina
Algeria Algeria Egypt Algeria Algeria
Zimbabwe US Burkina Faso Turkey Indonesia
Uganda Guatemala Bulgaria Cameroon Bolivia
Nigeria Lesotho China Libya Benin
Romania Nigeria Philippines Benin Vietnam
Bolivia Qatar Paraguay Ethiopia Tanzania
Russia Libya Korea Jamaica Mozambique
Guyana Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Bangladesh Mongolia
Madagascar Panama Serbia Honduras Mali
Tajikistan Lithuania Pakistan Mali Guyana
Poland China Croatia Kazakhstan Ethiopia
Moldova Burundi Kazakhstan Philippines Madagascar
Ukraine Argentina Italy Guyana Uganda
Philippines Indonesia Vietnam Bolivia Syria
Venezuela Guyana Madagascar Russia Nicaragua
Lithuania Botswana Slovenia Lesotho Ecuador
Argentina Hungary Venezuela Tanzania Zimbabwe
Nepal Ecuador Bangladesh Uganda Ukraine
Bangladesh Honduras Moldova El Salvador Philippines
Tanzania Chad Ecuador Peru Nigeria
Slovakia Paraguay Ukraine Paraguay Honduras
Burundi Bulgaria Guyana Mozambique Bangladesh
Cameroon Saudi Arabia Algeria Colombia Azerbaijan
Mali Mongolia Macedonia Nepal Pakistan
Serbia Slovakia Ethiopia Mexico Mauritania
Swaziland Korea, Rep. Russia South Africa Paraguay
Syria Ukraine Tajikistan Mauritania Nepal
Macedonia Tanzania Mali Guatemala Libya
Mongolia Nicaragua Libya Burundi Cameroon
Burkina Faso Latvia Bolivia Nigeria Tajikistan
Libya Bolivia Mauritania Venezuela Russia
Mauritania Kuwait Chad Egypt Kenya
Chad Poland Nepal Chad Cambodia
Paraguay Pakistan Kuwait Madagascar Venezuela
Bosnia Russia Syria Pakistan Burundi
Lesotho Venezuela Burundi Kenya Chad

study, and future studies may consider supplementing with alter-
native measures. We also recommend adding more items to reflect
the quality of tourism and related infrastructure.
Finally, future studies might consider extending the period of
this study. For example, recent events such as the economic crisis
might have influenced the findings in this study and affected the
results that were drawn from the data used. Hence, we believe that
adding more years to the sample would be important in order to
validate and provide further evidence to the robustness of the
present findings.
References
Alegre, J., & Cladera, M. (2006). Repeat visitation in mature sun and sand holiday
destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 44(3), 288e297.
Assaf, A., & Josiassen, A. (2012). Identifying and ranking the determinants of tourism
performance a global investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 51(4), 388e399.
Assaf, A. G., et al. (2012). Internationalization and performance of retail firms: a
Bayesian dynamic model. Journal of Retailing, 88(2), 191e205.
Balaguer, J., & Cantavella-Jorda, M. (2002). Tourism as a long-run economic growth
factor: the Spanish case. Applied Economics, 34(7), 877e884.
Barkema, H. G., Bell, J. H., & Pennings, J. M. E. (1996). Foreign entry, cultural barriers
and learning. Strategic Management Journal, 151e166.
Barros, C. P., Botti, L., Peypoch, N., Robinot, E., Solonandrasana, B., & Assaf, A. (2011).
Performance of French destinations: tourism attraction perspectives. Tourism
Management, 32(1), 141e146.
Barros, C. P., & Machado, L. P. (2010). The length of stay in tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 37(3), 692e706.
Beerli, A., & Martín, J. D. (2004). Tourists' characteristics and the perceived image of
tourist destinations: a quantitative analysisda case study of Lanzarote, Spain.
Tourism Management, 25(5), 623e636.
Boutellier, R., Gassmann, O., & von Zedtwitz, M. (1997, November). Innovation and
phases in transnational R&D. In Challenges for the 21st century e Networking
east and west, 7th international forum on technology management (pp. 3e7).
Brewer, T. L. (1993). Government policies, market imperfections, and foreign direct
investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 101e120.
Briassoulis, H. (2002). Sustainable tourism and the question of the commons. Annals
of Tourism Research, 29(4), 1065e1085.
Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. E., & Werner, S. (1996). Dunning's eclectic theory and
the smaller firm: the impact of ownership and locational advantages on the
choice of entry-modes in the computer software industry. International Business
Review, 5(4), 377e394.
Brouthers, L. E., Brouthers, K. D., & Werner, S. (2000). Perceived environmental
uncertainty, entry mode choice and satisfaction with EC-MNC performance.
British Journal of Management, 11(3), 183e195.
Buckley, P. (1983). New theories of international business: some unresolved issues. In
M. Casson (Ed.), The growth of international business. London: George Allen & Unwin.
 A.G. Assaf et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 329e340
Buckley, P. (1988). The limits of explanation: testing the internationalisation theory
of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, (2,
Summer), 181e193.
Buckley, P., Clegg, J. L., Cross, A., Liu, X., Voss, H., & Zheng, P. (2007). The de-
terminants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Journal of Interna-
tional Business Studies, 38, 499e518.
Burton, E. H., Kahler, M., & Montgomery, A. H. (2009). New theories of international
business: some unresolved issues. In M. Casson (Ed.), The growth of international
business. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Capar, N., & Kotabe, M. (2003). The relationship between international diversifi-
cation and performance in service firms. Journal of International Business
Studies, 34(4), 345e355.
Central Intelligence Agency. (2007e2011). The world factbook. https://www.cia.
gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ Accessed 21.03.13.
Chen, M. H. (2007). Interactions between business conditions and financial per-
formance of tourism firms: evidence from China and Taiwan. Tourism Man-
agement, 28(1), 188e203.
Chen, M. H. (2010). The economy, tourism growth and corporate performance in the
Taiwanese hotel industry. Tourism Management, 31(5), 665e675.
Child, J., & Yan, Y. (2003). Predicting the performance of international joint ven-
tures: an investigation in China. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 283e320.
Cho, K. R. (1983). A study on multinational banks (MNBs): Their identities and de-
terminants (Doctoral dissertation). University of Washington.
Cho, K. R. (1988). Determinants of intra-firm trade: a search for a theoretical
framework. The International Trade Journal, 3(2), 167e185.
City Travel Briefing-Dubai. (2009). Euromonitor International: Travel and tourism
reports. Chicago, USA.
Cole, C. R., Lee, R. B., & McCullough, K. A. (2007). A test of the eclectic paradigm:
evidence from the US reinsurance market. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 74(2),
493e522.
Contractor, F. J. (1990). Contractual and cooperative forms of international business:
towards a unified theory of modal choice. MIR: Management International Re-
view, 31e54.
Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. R. (1999). Tourism, competitiveness, and societal pros-
perity. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 137e152.
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Maloney, M. M., & Manrakhan, S. (2007). Causes of the diffi-
culties in internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5),
709e725.
Demirbag, M., Tatoglu, E., & Glaister, K. W. (2007). Factors influencing perceptions of
performance: the case of western FDI in an emerging market. International
Business Review, 16(3), 310e336.
Dhanaraj, C., & Beamish, P. W. (2004). Effect of equity ownership on the survival of
international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 295e305.
Dritsakis, N. (2004). Tourism as a long-run economic growth factor: an empirical
investigation for Greece using causality analysis. Tourism Economics, 10(3),
305e316.
Dunning, J. H. (1993). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Wokingham:
Addison-Wesley.
Dunning, J. H. (2001). The eclectic (OLI) paradigm of international production: past,
present and future. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(2),
173e190.
Dunning, J. H., & Kundu, S. K. (1995). The internationalization of the hotel industry:
some new findings from a field study. MIR: Management International Review,
101e133.
Dunning, J. H., & McQueen, M. (1982). Multinational corporations in the interna-
tional hotel industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(1), 69e90.
Euromonitor International e World Tourism Organization Data. (2007e2011).
Travel and tourism report. Chicago, US.
Faulkner, B., Oppermann, M., & Fredline, E. (1999). Destination competitiveness: an
exploratory examination of South Australia's core attractions. Journal of Vaca-
tion Marketing, 5(2), 125e139.
Glaeser, E. L., Kolko, J., & Saiz, A. (2001). Consumer city. Journal of Economic Geog-
raphy, 1(1), 27e50.
Go, F., Pine, R., & Yu, R. (1994). Hong Kong sustaining competitive advantage in
Asia's hotel industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
35(5), 50e61.
Gu, H., Ryan, C., & Yu, L. (2012). The changing structure of the Chinese hotel in-
dustry: 1980e2012. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4, 56e63.
Gunduz, L., & Hatemi-J, A. (2005). Is the tourism-led growth hypothesis valid for
Turkey? Applied Economics Letters, 12(8), 499e504.
Hymer, S. (1970). Papers and proceedings of the eighty-second annual meeting of
the American Economic Association. The American Economic Review, 60(2),
441e448.
International Monetary Fund. (2007e2011). Exchange rate data. https://www.imf.
org/external/data.htm Accessed 21.03.13.
Javalgi, R. R. G., Griffith, D. A., & White, D. S. (2003). An empirical examination of
factors influencing the internationalization of service firms. Journal of Services
Marketing, 17(2), 185e201.
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1990). The mechanism of internationalisation. Inter-
national Marketing Review, 7(4).
Johnson, C., & Vanetti, M. (2005). Locational strategies of international hotel chains.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1077e1099.
Khadaroo, J., & Seetanah, B. (2007). Transport infrastructure and tourism develop-
ment. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4), 1021e1032.
339
Kim, H. J., Chen, M. H., & Jang, S. (2006). Tourism expansion and economic devel-
opment: the case of Taiwan. Tourism Management, 27(5), 925e933.
Knight, G. (1999). International services marketing: review of research, 1980e1998.
Journal of Services Marketing, 13(4/5), 347e360.
Ko€nig, M. (2003). An econometric framework for testing the eclectic paradigm of
international firm activities. Review of World Economics, 139(3), 484e506.
Laws, E. (1995). Tourist destination management: Issues, analysis and policies.
Routledge.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Management of technology and moose on tables. Or-
ganization Science, 3(4), 556e558.
Levis, M. (1979). Does political instability in developing countries affect foreign
investment flow? An empirical examination. Management International Review,
59e68.
Lim, E. G. (2001). Determinants of and the relation between foreign direct investment
and growth: A summary of the recent literature. Working paper 01/175. Wash-
ington: International Monetary Fund.
Martell, K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). How strategic is HRM? Human Resource Man-
agement, 34(2), 253e267.
Miller, S. R., & Parkhe, A. (1998). Patterns in the expansion of US banks' foreign
operations. Journal of International Business Studies, 359e389.
Morgan, R. E., & Katsikeas, C. S. (1997). Theories of international trade, foreign direct
investment and firm internationalization: a critique. Management Decision,
35(1), 68e78.
Moshirian, F. (2001). International investment in financial services. Journal of
Banking & Finance, 25(2), 317e337.
O'Gorman, C., & McTiernan, L. (2000). Factors influencing the internationalization
choices of small and medium-sized enterprises: the case of the Irish hotel in-
dustry. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 1(2), 141e151.
Peypoch, N., Randriamboarison, R., Rasoamananjara, F., & Solonandrasana, B. (2012).
The length of stay of tourists in Madagascar. Tourism Management, 33(5),
1230e1235.
Ramo
n Rodríguez, A. (2002). Determining factors in entry choice for international
expansion. The case of the Spanish hotel industry. Tourism Management, 23(6),
597e607.
Tayeb, M. (1995). The competitive advantage of nations: the role of HRM and its
socio-cultural context. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
6(3), 588e605.
The Foundation for International Development Study and Research. (2007e2011).
Human assets index. http://www.ferdi.fr/en/node/883 Accessed 21.03.13.
The Hofstede Centre. (2007e2011). Hofstede's cultural dimensions. http://geert-
hofstede.com/the-hofstede-centre.html Accessed 21.03.13.
The World Bank. (2007e2011). Consumer price index. http://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/FP.CPI.TOTL Accessed 21.03.13.
The World Bank. (2007e2011). Doing business. http://www.doingbusiness.org/data
Accessed 21.03.13.
The World Bank. (2007e2011). GDP per capita. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
NY.GDP.PCAP.CD Accessed 21.03.13.
The World Bank. (2007e2011). The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI)
project. www.govindicators.org Accessed 21.03.13.
The World Bank. Total tax rate (% of commercial profits). http://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/IC.TAX.TOTL.CP.ZS Accessed 21.03.13.
Transparency International. (2007e2011). Corruption perceptions index. http://
www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview Accessed 21.03.13.
Tsai, H., Song, H., & Wong, K. K. (2009). Tourism and hotel competitiveness research.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26(5e6), 522e546.
UNESCO. (2007e2011). World heritage list. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/ and
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg¼en&pg¼00011 Accessed
21.03.13.
UNODC. (2007e2011). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: global study on
homicide. http://www.unodc.org/gsh/ Accessed 21.03.13.
Wan, Y. K. P. (2011, April). Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Macao as
an attractive meeting and convention destination: perspectives of key in-
formants. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 12(2), 129e151. Taylor &
Francis Group.
Wheeler, D., & Mody, A. (1992). International investment location decisions: the
case of US firms. Journal of International Economics, 33(1), 57e76.
World Economic Forum. (2007e2011). The travel & tourism competitiveness report.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TravelTourismCompetitiveness_Report_
2007.pdf Accessed 21.03.13.
Albert Assaf is an Associate Professor at the Isenberg
School of Management, University of Massachusetts-
Amherst. His work has appeared in several tourism, man-
agement and economic journals, such as Tourism Manage-
ment, Journal of Travel Research, Annals of Tourism
Research, and Journal of Retailing.
340 A.G. Assaf et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 329e340
Alexander Josiassen is an Associate Professor at the
Copenhagen Business School. His work has appeared in
several marketing and tourism journals, such as Journal of
Marketing, Tourism Management, Journal of Travel
Research, Annals of Tourism Research, and Journal of
Retailing.
Frank Agbola is an Associate Professor at the Newcastle
Business School. His work has appeared in several eco-
nomic and tourism journals, such as Applied Economics,
Singapore Economic Review, Tourism Analysis and
Tourism Economics.