Your SlideShare is downloading. × assessment assessment assessment assessment assessment assessment assessment assessment assessment assessment assessment assessment assessment assessment assessment assessment assessment
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply assessment


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at,1 An assessment of the competitiveness of the Moroccan tourism industry6 Benchmarking implications Mahmoud Yasin Department of Management and Marketing, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA Jafar Alavi Department of Economics and Finance, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA Sallem Koubida Al-Akhawayn University, Ifrane, Morocco, and Michael H. Small Department of Management and Marketing, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine practices, realities and opportunities relevant to Moroccan tourism. In the process, the competitiveness of this vital economic sector is assessed. Based on this examination, relevant, benchmarking implications are identified and advanced to policy makers. Design/methodology/approach – The shift-share technique is utilized to analyze tourist arrivals, from different regions of the world, to Morocco, Turkey, Tunisia and Egypt. The shift-share analysis is utilized to understand the existing competitive position of Morocco in relation to her main competitors. Findings – The results of the shift-share analysis revealed that Morocco has not performed as well as the rest of the competitors in the benchmark group. This was attributed, in part, to focusing on markets with less potential for growth. Research limitations/implications – The shift-share technique utilized in this study is a diagnostic tool. Thus, more research is needed to uncover the dynamic relationships relevant to the competitive position of Moroccan tourism. Practical implications – The findings of this study have clear benchmarking implications to Moroccan policy makers, as they pursue a more comprehensive and systematic tourism strategy. Originality/value – The applied research presented in this article is consistent with the increasing significance of global tourism. Keywords Morocco, Tourism management, Benchmarking, Competitive advantage Paper type Research paperBenchmarking: An InternationalJournal IntroductionVol. 18 No. 1, 2011pp. 6-22 In recent times, economic activities in terms of both contribution to the gross nationalq Emerald Group Publishing Limited1463-5771 product and employment have witnessed dramatic shift from manufacturing activitiesDOI 10.1108/14635771111109797 to service activities. The growth of the service sector has been noted in different
  • 2. economies across the globe. The tourism industry in many countries is a major The Moroccancomponent of the service-driven economy. tourism The growth in the global tourism market in the last few decades has been unmistakable.In this context, tourism has become a major element of the global service economy. The industryeconomic impact of global tourism activities is presenting concerned countries andmarkets with new realities, challenges and opportunities. Therefore, tourists attractingcountries have to approach their markets, services and strategies more systematically. 7In this context, Morocco is no exception. As Moroccan policy makers and tourism industryleaders attempted to re-orient their tourism policies, they must have a full understanding oftheir current strengths and weaknesses relative to their immediate competitors. Despite her tourism potential, Morocco suffers from serious, yet, manageablelimitations. These limitations and shortcomings can be easily addressed by innovativepractices and targeted investments. The first step in this direction must focus onunderstanding the current relevant forces which shape the Moroccan tourism industry.In the process, this effort must be directed by comparing existing practices with othercompetitive practices from other countries. The objective of this study is to provide such understanding. Specifically, this studyutilizes the shift-share technique to shed some light on the existing competitive realities ofthe Moroccan tourism sector. The results of the investigation have practical implicationsto Moroccan policy makers, as they attempt to capitalize on the opportunities presentedby the growth of the global tourism market.BackgroundSince the 1950s, when international travels began to be accessible to the general public,the number of tourists has been increasing at an average rate of 7.1 percent per year.In 2007, the number of international tourists reached 900 million. The industry’s revenueshave also been growing, reaching $733 billion in 2006 (World Tourism Organization(WTO, 2010)). Despite recent, short-term slow down, this positive trend is expected tocontinue in the near future. According to the WTO, the global tourism industry isexpected to grow at an annual rate of more than 6 percent till 2020. Traditionally, Europe has had the lion share of tourist arrivals. For example, Europeancountries combined share of the global tourism market was 54.4 percent (WTO, 2010).According to WTO (2010), in 2007, the top five countries in attracting tourism were France(79.1 million tourist arrivals), Spain (58.5 million tourist arrivals), USA (51.1 million touristarrivals), China (49.6 million tourist arrivals) and Italy (41.1 million tourist arrivals). Thesecountries have succeeded in differentiating themselves as attractive destinations forglobal tourists relative to other countries. Although seaside and business travels continue to be the two major segments of theglobal tourism market, there are some tourism niches that are growing at higher ratesdue to a growing demand for the local genuine tourism experience. For instance, in 1996,adventure-tourism accounted for about 15 percent of the total tourist arrivals to the USA.The adventure-tourism segment of the global tourism market is growing at a annual rateof 8 percent (Freire, 1998). However, in this context, adventure tourism is not alone; ruraland eco tourism are also growing at rates higher than the industry average (Fleischerand Pizam, 1997; Clarke et al., 2001; Sharpley, 2001). Typically, rural tourists seekadventures in agrarian areas with inexpensive accommodations (Oppermann, 1996).Therefore, rural tourism is considered as an effective source of income and employment
  • 3. BIJ in areas where traditional agrarian industries have been on the decline (Carlsen et al., 2001; Sharpley, 2001). The need for the economic revival of rural areas, combined with18,1 the growing interest in rural tourism has increased the potential of tourism as a mean for economic growth (Augustyn, 1998). In recent years, the growing importance of eco tourism and the development of infrastructure at attractions, made it necessary to use best practices to manage the impact of the increased number of visitors (Croy and Hogh,8 2002; Walmsley, 2003). Study setting Tourism is an important sector of the Moroccan economy. According to WTO (2010), the contribution of “travel and tourism” in the Moroccan economy in 2008 is expected to reach $14 billion, which will count as 19 percent of their GDP. Furthermore, the growth in tourism is expected to continue for the near future. WTO estimates that in 2018, the revenue contribution of the tourism sector to the Moroccan economy will reach $25 billion. Traditionally, Morocco attracts tourists that are looking for seaside resorts or cultural heritage. These two types of tourism are competing to get the largest share. For a while, tourism in Morocco was dominated by seaside tourism until 1998 where cultural tourism took over (Berriane, 2002; Bauer et al., 2006; Hazbun, 2003). Besides, these two types of tourism, rural, desert and health care tourism are coming in force. Nusser (2005) investigates potential rural tourism in the southern part of Morocco (desert) and develops a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis for the region ˆ of Ouarzazate and Zagora and in the valley of Draa. The analysis shows that the community is trying to use the cultural heritage and the positive effect of tourism to keep families from moving to the cities and generate a secure income during drought years. Other benefits of rural tourism is the development of rural infrastructure, set up nature reserves, upgrading modest facilities like down-hill skiing in the Middle-Atlas by Ifrane or the High-Atlas by Marrakech, training local environmentally friendly tourist guides (Peyron, 2003; Chemonics International, 2006). Realizing the importance of tourism to economic growth, in 2001 Morocco established a strategy, “Vision 2010”, in which the country targeted to attract ten million tourists by 2010 (Water, 2002). Morocco has the potential to attract tourists from Europe as well as the rest of the world. In addition to may historical attractions, Morocco has a vast unspoiled coastlines and mountains, which can potentially attract “eco tourists” from all over the world (Water, 2002; Caffyn and Jobbins, 2003; Khalil, 2004). The following are the objectives of Vision 2010 (Moroccan Ministry of Tourism, 2009): (1) Reach ten million tourist arrivals – 7 million of which are international visitors. (2) Invest e8-9 billion in tourism-related industries. (3) Create 160,000 new beds – 130,000 in sea tourist resorts and 30,000 beds in cultural destinations of the country. (4) Create 600,000 new jobs. (5) Increasing the hard currency from tourism sales to $8 billion from $2 billion in 2000[1]. (6) Tourism contributing 20 percent to the GDP of the country – was 6.3 percent of GDP in 2003 and 7.1 percent in 2005[2].
  • 4. To reach these objectives, the government is developing a partnership between public and The Moroccanprivate sector. Plan Azur is one of these partnerships. Under this plan, six new seaside tourismresorts will be built. One of the resorts is on the Mediterranean Saidia beach and the otherfive resorts on the Atlantic coastline: Port Lixus, Larache; Mogador, Essaouira; Mazagan, industryEl Jadida; Taghzout, Agadir and Playa Blanca, Guelmim. The first of these resorts will bedelivered by mid-2009. In addition, the government is speeding up the construction of anetwork of highways at a rate of 160 kilometers per year from 40 kilometers per year in the 91990s[3], and signed a global air agreement in 2005, Open Sky, which grants a mutualaccess to Moroccan and European sky by national air companies and will create 100 newweekly frequencies per year. Finally, the government is simplifying and easing theprocedures to attract foreign direct investments – creation of regional tourism centersand regional investment centers. Table I shows tourist arrivals to Morocco by country of origin. After the arrivals ofMoroccan living abroad (MLA), French tourist arrivals comes first in the list by 43.76percent[4] of total non-Moroccan arrivals, followed by Spanish and British tourists by12.03 and 6.33 percent, respectively. Note that French[5] tourist arrivals in Tunisiarepresent 18.42 percent of total non-resident visitors and for Egypt and Turkey it is of4 and 3.32 percent, respectively. In this study, we examine three countries that compete directly with Morocco fortourists, namely Tunisia, Egypt and Turkey. All of these countries are equidistant fromEurope which is the largest emitter of tourist to the region. More specifically, Tunisia isconsidered to be the major competitor to the Moroccan touristic products for tworeasons. First, Tunisia has similar seaside tourism infrastructure. Second, and in term ofthe nationality of tourist arrivals, French are considered to be the first demanders of theproducts offered by Morocco and Tunisia. Furthermore, the World Economic Forum (WEF) in its reports identifies 14 pillars asmeasures of the many business-related factors that influence competitiveness in thesector of travel and tourism. Each of these pillars in itself is made up of a number ofvariables. In this study, we recognize only the pillars and the variables that aresignificantly different in the four countries under examination. The three pillars we areinterested in are the following: price competitiveness, prioritization of travel and tourismand human/cultural resources. First, Table II shows that airline ticket taxes and airport charges are very low inTurkey and Egypt where they are ranked 21st and 32nd, respectively, out of 130economies. In comparison, these taxes and charges are considerably higher for Morocco(ranked 76th out of 130 economies) and very high in Tunisia (ranked 108th out of 130economies). In addition, the cost of a five-star hotel rooms per night in Egypt and Tunisiaare among the lowest in the world (ranked 5th and 10th out of 130 economies,respectively). In the case of Morocco, room charges are much higher (ranked 81st out of130 economies) which is the highest of the four countries in this study. Overall, Moroccoappears to be less competitive than her main competitors in the price competitivenesscategory. Perhaps, this translates into a competitive disadvantage for Morocco. Second, the Moroccan Government prioritization and expenditure on tourism showsno clear advantage over Tunisia and Egypt, where these countries are spendingconsiderably more than what Morocco spends on tourism as a percentage of totalgovernment budget. For example, as shown in Table II, Tunisia is ranked seventh(very high) worldwide in prioritizing travel and tourism and 17th in the amount
  • 5. 10 BIJ origin 18,1 Table I. Tourist arrivals to Morocco by country of 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Var. (%) 2007-2008MLA 2,130,328 2,230,993 2,537,396 2,769,132 2,787,825 2,986,372 3,376,719 3,666,784 9France 840,230 877,465 916,147 1,167,088 1,337,204 1,481,610 1,605,503 1,707,055 6Spain 200,519 201,258 231,156 317,119 367,811 467,956 540,186 595,279 10Germany 196,700 172,860 129,391 141,210 144,200 151,396 159,844 179,037 12UK 135,642 146,511 134,009 150,354 193,552 265,536 338,304 274,762 219Italy 123,628 112,518 100,001 112,807 120,955 140,923 160,047 163,315 2Belgium 84,011 83,966 80,062 105,821 125,890 149,531 164,723 173,004 5Others 668,932 627,689 633,109 713,182 765,940 915,009 1,062,291 1,119,403 5T. arrivals 4,379,990 4,453,260 4,761,271 5,476,713 5,843,377 6,558,333 7,407,617 7,878,639 6Source: Moroccan Ministry of Tourism (2009)
  • 6. Price competitivenessa Government prioritiesb Human and cultural resources Number of international fairs and Ticket taxes and Avg. five star Travel and Travel and tourism Quality of the exhibitions held on averageCountry airport charged room rate tourism priority expenditure educational systemc annuallydEgypt 32 5 31 20 119 54Morocco 76 81 23 55 90 64Tunisia 108 10 7 17 12 70Turkey 21 48 58 118 70 31Notes: aOut of 130 economies: 1 being the cheapest and 130 is the most expensive; bout of 130 economies: 1 high priority/expenditure and 130 lowpriority/expenditure; cout of 130 economies: 1 best educational system and 130 worst educational system; dout of 130 economies: 1 high exposure throughinternational fairs and exhibitions and 130 low exposureSource: WEF (2008) industry tourism The Moroccan Moroccan tourism facts 11 Table II.
  • 7. BIJ the government allocates to travel and tourism. By comparison, Morocco’s travel and18,1 tourism is ranked 23rd in the government priority and 55th in allocation of funds to the travel and tourism sector. Finally, with regard to human and cultural resources, as shown in Table II, the quality of Tunisia’s educational system is ranked the highest (12th out of 130 economies) among the four countries in this study. On the other hand, Turkey, Morocco and Egypt are12 lagging behind in the quality of the educational system. They are ranked 70th, 90th and 119th, respectively. The quality of the educational system is relevant to the effectiveness of the service sector in general, and to the tourism industry in particular. Such system provides the tourism industry with human resources know-how needed to gain, improve and sustain a competitive advantage in such a dynamic industry. Furthermore, concerning the cultural resources as represented by the number of international fairs and exhibitions held annually, Table II shows that Morocco is ranked 64th among the 130 economies. In relation to her direct competitors, Morocco’s ranking is the second worse after Tunisia. In this group of four countries, Turkey is ranked the highest (31st out of 130 economies) and Egypt is ranked second (54th out of 130 economies). In this context, it appears that Morocco is not exerting sufficient efforts to promote its cultural resources through well-organized international fairs and exhibitions. Thus, this represents an area for potential improvements in the competitive position of her tourism industry. To sum up, price competitiveness is a major obstacle to the competitiveness and development of travel and tourism in Morocco. The lack of attention to the travel and tourism sector as evident by the low national priority given to this sector also may impose a serious limitation on the competitive position of Moroccan tourism. In addition to 3,500 kilometers of coastline on Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean, Morocco also has a rich cultural resource which appears to be underutilized as evident by the lack of international fairs and exhibitions. Overall, Moroccan tourism has a great economic potential if the obstacles noted above are removed (Mabrouk et al., 2008). The study This study uses a shift-share technique, founded on Creamer’s (1943) “locational shifts” in manufacturing, which is a tool that partitions the growth in an economic variable (such as income, output, employment, etc.) in a particular area (i.e. state, region and city) into various components (Mondal, 1992; Dinc and Haynes, 1999). Although the traditional shift-share model is an accounting-based model, the probabilistic forms of this technique have also been in use (Knudsen, 2000). This technique is usually applied in economic studies, but it can be used in other settings. For example, a version of this technique called the constant market share model has been used to analyze growth in international trade (Ahmadi-Esfahani, 1995; Ongsritrakul and Hubbard, 1996). Despite its limitations, the shift-share technique has been widely used in analyzing growth in economic variables. A major benefit of the shift-share technique is its simplicity and the fact that its use does not require primary data collection. On the other hand, its limitations center around concerns such as temporal nature, theoretical content and predictive capabilities of the technique (Houston, 1967; Stillwell, 1970; Hellman, 1976; Richardson, 1978; Stevens and Moore, 1980; Knudsen, 2000). The shift-share technique is a mathematical identity designed to decompose growth into four components. This study uses the technique as a diagnostic tool. In this context,
  • 8. the model is not designed to identify cause-and-effect relationship, nor it is designed to The Moroccanbe used as a forecasting instrument. However, despite these criticisms, the shift-share tourismtechnique remains a popular, inexpensive and simple tool to analyze performance andcomposition of the economic variable. industry This technique has been applied in the tourism industry (Sirakaya et al., 1995; Alaviand Yasin, 2000; Sirakaya et al., 2002). The first study performed a typical shift-shareanalysis, measuring the employment in the tourism industry in South Carolina for 13different industries (such as air transportation, museums and art galleries and golfcourses) at the beginning and end of a specified period of analysis and then comparedthem to a benchmark (in this case six South Atlantic States). The resulting growthduring the period was then decomposed into national growth, the industry mix and thecompetitive effect. The second study studied the characteristics and dynamics of thetourism market for four Middle Eastern countries. In the third study, Sirakaya et al.(2002, p. 304) examine the employment in the tourism industry using shift-sharetechnique. They assert: [. . .] the Shift-Share technique is an alternative to more rigorous econometric methods for policy makers who need a quick and inexpensive analytical tool to evaluate the performance and composition of their tourism industry.The study at hand is an application of a version of the shift-share technique developed byEsteban-Mrquillas (1972) and used by Alavi and Yasin (2000) to measure the growth intourists arrivals in the Middle East area (Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Syria). The purpose ofthis study is to measure the growth in tourist arrivals to the Northern African area(Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia) and Turkey from different regions of the world (Americas,Europe, Eastern Asia-Pacific, Western Asia, Africa and others). These regions areresponsible for the bulk of tourist arrivals into the studied area. The countries in thebenchmark area (Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and Turkey) tend to be geographically close.Also, they share similar tourism markets characteristics. The equation for the tourism industry in country ( j), receiving tourists from region(i) can be expressed as: ^ T 1 2 T 0 ¼ T 0 ðGAREA Þ þ T 0 ðGiAREA 2 GAREA Þ þ Tij ðGij 2 GiAREA Þ ij ij ij ij ^ þ ðT 0 2 Tij ÞðGij 2 GiAREA Þ ijwhere: T1 2 T0 ij ij Gij ¼ T0 ij T1 0 AREA 2 T AREA GAREA ¼ T0 AREA T1 0 iAREA 2 T iAREA GiAREA ¼ T0 iAREA 0 ^ T Tij ¼ T 0 iAREA j T0AREA
  • 9. BIJ The terms in the above equations are defined as:18,1 T1 ij ¼ tourist arrivals to country (j) from region (i) at period 1 (i.e. the end of the period). T0 ij ¼ tourist arrivals to country (j) from region (i) at period 0 (i.e. the beginning of the period).14 GAREA ¼ overall, growth rate in total tourist arrivals from all regions to the area from period 0 to 1. T0 j ¼ total tourist arrivals from all regions to country (j) at period 0. T0 iAREA ¼ total tourist arrivals from region (i) to area at period 0. T1 iAREA ¼ total tourist arrivals from region (i) to area at period 1. T0 AREA ¼ total tourist arrivals from all regions to area at period 0. T1 AREA ¼ total tourist arrivals from all regions to area at period 1. GiAREA ¼ growth rate in tourist arrivals from region (i) to the area from period 0 to 1. Gij ¼ growth rate in tourist arrivals from region (i) to country (j) from period 0 to 1. ^ Tij ^ ¼ Tij represents what the tourist arrivals to country (j) from region (i) would be if the structure and pattern of tourist arrivals from region (i) were equal to the benchmark. Under this formulation, the actual growth in tourist arrivals to country ( j) from region (i) from period 0 to period 1 is decomposed into four components. h i Area-wide effect T 0 ðGAREA Þ ij This effect measures the change of tourist arrivals a country would expect, if it had a growth rate equal to the benchmark. It represents the country’s share of tourism relative to the benchmark. Comparing the area effect with the actual growth there are three possibilities that must be examined: (1) If its value is equal to the actual growth, then the country has kept its market share of the tourism inflow to the area. In this case, the sum of the other effects will equal zero. (2) If, on the other hand, this effect is larger than the actual growth, then it means that the country received fewer tourists than its expected share. In this case, the examination of the other effects will be important to explain it. (3) The last possible result is when the area effect is smaller than the actual growth. This means that the country is receiving more tourists than it was expected based on the previous share. Again, the examination of the other three effects should provide some insights as to why is the case.
  • 10. h iRegion-mix effect T 0 ðGiAREA 2 GAREA Þ ij The MoroccanThis effect measures the difference between the growth rate of tourism from region (i) to tourismthe area and the overall growth rate from all regions to the area. If the growth rate industryof tourism from region (i) is greater than the overall growth rate then the effect ispositive. Otherwise, it is negative. If this component is positive then it means that thebenchmark economy is focussed on attracting tourists with higher than average growthrate. On the other hand, a negative component means focus of efforts on regions with 15lower than average growth rate. h i ^Competitive effect Tij ðGij 2 GiAREA ÞThis effect measures the difference between the growth rate of tourism from region (i) tocountry (j) and the growth rate from region (i) to the area. If this effect is positive then itmeans that the country is attracting more tourists from region (i) than the benchmark.On other words, the competitive effect becomes positive when the country is increasing itstourists inflow from a certain region faster than its competitors, otherwise it will be negative.If a country can attract tourists at higher pace than its benchmark economy it indicates acompetitive advantage of that country. If not, the country has a competitive disadvantage. h i ^Allocation effect ðT 0 2 Tij ÞðGij 2 GiAREA Þ ijThis component, also known as interaction effect, measures the growth in touristsarrivals that is attributed to the interaction of the region-mix effect and the competitiveeffect. This element is unique to the Esteban-Mrquillas (1972) model. It indicates if acountry is specialized in attracting tourists from regions in which it has a competitiveadvantage. The magnitude of this effect indicates how well the country is doing inattracting tourists from regions according to its competitive advantage. Therefore, asindicated by Alavi and Yasin (2000), a country may have a “competitive advantage” or“disadvantage” and may be “specialized” or “not specialized” in attracting tourists fromregion (i). These four possibilities are synthesized in Figure 1. COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE (+) (–) Advantage Disadvantage (Gij – GiAREA) > 0 (Gij – GiAREA) < 0 (–) (T 0 – T ) < 0 ˆ (T 0 – T ) < 0 ˆ SPECIALIZATION ij ij ij ij Not specialized A,N D,N (–) (+) (Gij – GiAREA) > 0 (Gij – GiAREA) < 0 0 ˆ 0 ˆ (+) (T – T ) > 0 ij ij (T – T ) > 0 ij ij Specialized A,S D,S Figure 1. (+) (–) An illustration of possible allocation effects
  • 11. BIJ Results and discussion18,1 This study analyzed the growth in tourist arrivals to four destinations (Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey) between 2002 and 2005, from five major regions of the globe (Americas, Europe, Eastern Asia-Pacific, Western Asia and Africa). The data used for this analysis are obtained from the Statistical Yearbook 2005 which was published by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Division. The choice of16 the four countries studied was based on these countries geographic proximity, and similarity in attractions. While this choice is relative and therefore debatable, the utility of the methodology utilized is promising. This methodology is useful to policy makers as they assess the relative standing of their countries and drive meaningful practical benchmarking implications. The regions studied include Americas, Europe, Eastern Asia and Oceania, Western Asia and Africa. The focus on these five major regions is justified due to the importance of these regions in the global tourism market of more than 96 percent of total tourist arrivals globally. The time period under study (2002 and 2005) is dictated by the availability of the most recent data needed to perform the shift-share analysis. Table III reports the number of tourist arrivals into the studied area. The numbers in Table III indicate that Egypt and Turkey received the highest number of tourists where Tunisia was a close third, and Morocco was last. Based on the numbers in Table III, Europe is largest contributor of tourist arrivals to the studied countries (i.e. area) in this study. This can be attributed to the close proximity of Europe to the area, and the relative strength of the European economy. The relative lack of tourist arrivals to the area from the America is noted. This can be attributed to the unwillingness of US citizens to travel to these areas after 9/11. The Western-Asia region, which consists, mainly, of the Middle Eastern Arab countries is a significant contributor of tourist arrivals to this area. Table III also shows the number of tourist arrivals to the three North African countries and Turkey for the time frame under study. Based on this table, Egypt and Turkey are clearly the most important tourist destinations. These two countries combined attracted around 28 million tourists during 2005. In addition, Egypt and Americas Europe Eastern Asia and Oceania Western Asia Africa Total Morocco 2002 119,229 1,868,540 44,242 85,996 91,698 2,209,705 2005 140,194 2,607,239 51,745 91,029 143,855 3,034,062 Turkey 2002 253,804 11,359,447 280,607 303,860 130,758 12,328,476 2005 390,884 17,663,077 421,643 625,686 154,489 19,255,779 Tunisia 2002 21,920 2,918,526 7,167 1,310,607 786,053 5,044,273 2005 35,202 3,869,035 13,710 1,440,387 993,378 6,351,712 Egypt 2002 171,458 3,583,791 213,771 1,012,613 161,497 5,143,130 2005 297,675 6,047,194 411,048 1,511,285 263,847 8,531,049 TotalTable III. 2002 566,411 19,730,304 545,787 2,713,076 1,170,006 24,725,584Tourists arrivals 2005 863,955 30,186,545 898,146 3,668,387 1,555,569 37,172,602by region of origin(2002 and 2005) Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Division (2007)
  • 12. Turkey representing more than 75 percent of tourist arrivals to the countries under The Moroccanstudy. It is also to be noted that based on the analysis in Table III approximately tourism80 percent of tourist arrivals to the four countries studied were from Europe. This is notsurprising as the European continent is responsible for more than 50 percent of the industryworldwide tourism demand. These four countries studied offer Europeans manytourism options while being physically accessible due to geographical proximity. Thus,these four countries are very attractive tourism destinations to the Europeans. 17 The illustration of shift-share analysis shown in Figure 2 indicates that the number oftourist arrivals from Europe to Morocco has increased (i.e. actual growth) by 738,699during 2002-2005 period. Using the shift-share technique, this growth was decomposedinto the following four components. The area-wide effect accounted for 940,623 touristarrivals. This effect represents the expected Moroccan market share if its growth ratehad been the same as the overall benchmark growth rate. The actual growth comparedto the area-wide effect shows that Morocco had a growth rate which is lower than theaverage rate of growth for the area. Thus, Morocco received fewer tourists than it wouldhave expected. This difference of 201,924 is explainable by the other three components.The positive value of the region-mix effect of 49,703 indicates that the growth rate intourist arrivals from Europe to the area is larger than that of the overall growth rate tothe area (i.e. or 0.5300 . 0.5034). This implies that European tourists are gaining weightin the overall tourism contribution to the area. Therefore, this analysis clearly indicatesthat Morocco concentrated on attracting tourists from a region, which had faster thanaverage growth rate in relation to the benchmark area. The competitive effect of 2 237,514 indicates Morocco’s growth rate in termsof attracting tourists from Europe is smaller than the average for the benchmark area(i.e. Gij , GiAREA or 0.3953 , 0.5300). As a result, European tourists travelled toMorocco at a lower rate relative to other countries in the benchmark (area). This impliesthat Morocco has a competitive disadvantage in attracting European tourists in relationto its benchmark. Finally, the negative allocation effect of 2 14,178 tourist arrivalsindicates that although Morocco had a competitive disadvantage in attracting tourist ^from Europe (i.e. Gij , GiAREA ), it was strongly specialized in this region (i.e. T 0 . Tij or ij1,868,540 . 1,763,281). Morocco Benchmark economy Year Europe Total Europe Total 2002 1,868,540 2,209,705 19,730,304 24,725,584 2005 2,607,239 3,034,062 30,186,545 37,172,602 Component Formula Calculation Actual growth Ti1 – Ti0 j j 2,607,239 – 1,868,540 = 738,699 Area-wide effect Ti0 (GAREA) j 1,868,540 (0.5034) = 940,623* Region-mix effect (Ti0 (GiAREA – GAREA) j 1,868,540 (0.5300 – 0.5034) = 49,703* Competitive effect ˆ Tij (Gij – GiAREA) 1,763,281 (0.3953 – 0.5300) = –237,514* Allocation effect ˆ (Ti0 – Tij) (Gij – GiAREA) (1,868,540 – 1,763,281) (0.3953 -0.5300) = –14,178 j Figure 2. T1 0 AREA – T AREA 37,172,602 – 24,725,584 Ti1 – Ti0 j j 2,607,239 – 1,868,540 Illustration of shift-share GAREA = = = 0.5034 Gij = = = 0.3953 T0 AREA 24,725,584 Ti0 j 1,868,540 analysis for tourist arrivals from Europe to T1 0 – T iAREA 30,186,545 – 19,730,304 T0 19,730,304 GiAREA = iAREA = = 0.5300 Tij = T 0 ˆ j iAREA = 2,209,705 = 1,763,281 Morocco (2002-2005) T0iAREA 19,730,304 T0 AREA 24,725,584
  • 13. BIJ Table IV shows the overall results of the shift-share analysis for the four countries18,1 studied. This table shows that Morocco’s “actual growth” was smaller than the “area-wide effect” for all regions except Africa. Thus, Morocco’s growth in tourism was less than “their share” of growth for the other North African countries. This gives rise to the negative “competitive advantage”, or disadvantage in attracting tourists from all areas except Africa. In contrast, this table shows the strong position of Egypt in North African18 tourism market. The positive “competitive effect” gives rise to the competitive advantage in attracting tourism from all regions. However, Egypt is not “specialized” in attracting tourists from the regions where she enjoys competitive advantage, except for “Africa.” The results of the shift-share analysis have practical benchmarking implications to the benchmark area as a whole and the countries within the benchmark area. Conclusions and implications Based on the results of this study and the realities of today’s global tourism marketplace, the following conclusions and implications are put forth. First, despite its potential, the area which makes up the four countries of interest to this study is lagging behind in terms of attracting tourists. In 2002, this area attracted about 24.7 million tourists from the regions under study. While this total reached about 37 million in 2005, the area as whole still lagged behind single major tourism destination, such as Italy, France, or Spain. In this context, this area stands to benefit from Actual Area-wide Region-mix Competitive Allocation To From growth effect effect effect effect Code Morocco Americas 20,965 60,021 2,612 217,690 223,977 D,S Europe 738,699 940,635 49,613 2237,379 214,170 D,S E. Asia/Oceania 7,503 22,272 6,291 223,218 2,158 D,N West Asia 5,033 43,291 213,011 271,185 45,937 D,N Africa 52,157 46,161 215,943 25,017 23,078 A,N Total 824,357 1,112,380 29,563 2324,456 6,870 D,N Turkey Americas 137,080 127,767 5,560 4,176 271,008 A,S Europe 6,303,630 5,718,419 301,616 245,606 21,291,870 A,S E. Asia/Oceania 141,036 141,259 39,900 238,912 2110,353 D,S West Asia 321,826 152,965 245,972 956,427 218,025 A,N Africa 23,731 65,824 222,735 286,370 6,267 D,N Total 6,927,303 6,206,234 278,370 1,080,927 21,484,989 A,N Tunisia Americas 13,282 11,035 480 9,315 10,030 A,S Europe 950,509 1,469,205 77,493 2822,254 2155,523 D,S E. Asia/Oceania 6,543 3,608 1,019 29,767 19,806 A,S West Asia 129,780 659,768 2198,285 2140,085 2313,593 D,S Africa 207,325 395,704 2136,669 215,702 163,048 D,N Total 1,307,439 2,539,319 2255,962 2938,958 2276,232 D,S Egypt Americas 126,217 86,313 3,756 24,839 242,230 A,N Europe 2,463,403 1,804,103 95,157 646,042 2245,084 A,N E. Asia/Oceania 197,277 107,614 30,396 31,475 278,539 A,N West Asia 498,672 509,756 2153,201 79,204 2226,106 A,NTable IV. Africa 102,350 81,299 228,079 74,038 13,622 A,SShift-share results of Total 3,387,919 2,589,085 251,970 855,598 2578,337 A,Ntourist arrivals analysis(2002-2005) Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Division (2007)
  • 14. benchmarking their tourism strategies and practices of the leading tourists destinations The Moroccansuch as those mentioned above. tourism Second, a significant portion of the total tourist arrivals into this area is accounted forby tourists arriving from Europe. In other words, this area is very much dependent on industryEurope as the source of tourist arrivals. The geographical proximity of this area toEurope perhaps tends to explain this natural dependency. Furthermore, countries in thisarea have strong ties to European countries due to the historical and commercial ties. For 19example, French language is widely spoken in Morocco, Tunisia and to lesser extent inEgypt. In addition, the difference in standard of living and the relative strength of theEuro make the countries of this area very affordable destination to Europeans. Third, this area appears to be attracting a large number of tourists from developingcountries. Since economic power of these tourists is limited, they are not significantlycontributing to tourism revenues of the countries in this study. Fourth, this area is not drawing its fair share of tourists from the rich North Americancountries. This perhaps is attributed to the reluctance of tourists from North Americancountries to visit the countries in this area after the events of 9/11. Therefore,the countries in this study are in need of integrated and systematic marketing effortsaimed at attracting tourists from this rich region. These marketing efforts shouldaddress the safety concerns of tourists from this region. In addition, they should promotethe multi-faceted aspects of tourism with emphasis on innovative services such asecotourism. The above conclusion has implications to policy makers of the countries inthis area. In this context, a coordinated strategy is needed at the tourism ministry level ofthese countries (the benchmark area) to redefine tourism products, images and markets.In this context, internal, competitive and external benchmarking are useful. Fifth, with regard to Moroccan tourism specifically, Morocco should benefit frombenchmarking the practices of the leading countries in this study, namely Turkey, andthe leading country in the North Africa, namely Egypt. Such competitive benchmarkingshould help Morocco transfer Turkey’s and Egyptian’s best practices and in the processnarrow the gap between Morocco and the major competitors in the area. Sixth, Morocco appears to have no competitive advantage in any of the regions, with theexception of Africa. Thus, Moroccan policy makers and tourism industry leaders are calledupon to re-orient the patterns of specialization and competitive advantage which currentlytaking hold on the Moroccan tourism market. In this context, redefining the tourism imageof the country through emphasizing new products such as religious, eco and rural tourismmay prove useful. Thus, external benchmarking efforts to learn best practices may provevery helpful. These efforts should focus on countries like Spain, France and Italy. Seventh, the public and private sectors of the Moroccan tourism industry must worktogether to modernize the tourism infrastructure, strategy and practices. In this context,it is recommended that the focus should be on increasing the total tourist volume aswell as increasing revenues per tourist. To facilitate achieving this objective, some short-and long-term tactics and strategies should be deployed. As such, investments directedat improving the content and quality of the Moroccan educational system arerecommended. Also, a cooperative effort between the private sector and the public sectoris needed in order to systematically promote the tourism and cultural image of Moroccothrough hosting well-orchestrated international fairs and exhibitions. Furthermore,a careful examination of the costs/expenses related to tourism industry shouldbe undertaken to eliminate waste and non-value-added procedures, activities and
  • 15. BIJ expenditures. Such analysis should aim at improving the price competitiveness of the18,1 different aspects of Moroccan tourism. Finally, the Moroccan Government must reexamine its commitment and national priority in relation to the tourism industry. Overall, the shift-share analysis presented in this research is designed to provide area wide and country-specific policy makers with a realistic, understanding of the competitiveness of their respective tourism markets, product and potential. This20 understanding is instrumental toward developing a comprehensive and systematic tourism strategy. This strategy should be viewed in the context of the role and potential of tourism, as an economic growth opportunity. Despite recent efforts, as articulated by the “Vision 2010”, past Moroccan tourism policies have not yielded a competitive advantage in promising segments of the tourism global market. The Moroccan competitive advantage in Africa is not sufficient, as the African market is relatively weak in terms of purchasing power. Thus, its economic growth potential on the Moroccan economy is limited. Therefore, Morocco needs to systematically target more promising tourism markets and develop more innovative tourism-related services in order to capitalize on the growing global tourism market. Notes 1. Source: Morocco Tourism Reform, Middle East Business Intelligence, June 2001. 2. Source: “Compte satellite du tourisme”, Haut-Commissariat au Plan, report 2005. 3. Source: Ministry of Transport, available at: 4. Based on statistics of the year 2005. 5. We focus mainly on the position of French tourists in the four destinations under investigations because they make a sizable proportion of international arrivals to the country under study. References Ahmadi-Esfahani, F.Z. (1995), “Wheat market shares in the presence of Japanese import quotas”, Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 315-23. Alavi, J. and Yasin, M.M. (2000), “A systematic approach to tourism policy”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 48, pp. 147-56. Augustyn, M. (1998), “National strategies for rural tourism development and sustainability: the Polish experience”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 191-209. Bauer, S., Escher, A. and Knieper, S. (2006), “Essaouira, ‘the wind city’ as a ‘cultural product’”, Erdkundle, Vol. 60, pp. 25-39. ´ Berriane, M. (2002), “Les Nouvelles Tendances du Developpement du Tourisme au Maroc”, ´ ´ ` ´ Conference donnee dans le cadre du 13eme Festival International du Geographie de St Die, ´ ´ Saint-Die-des-Vosges. Caffyn, A. and Jobbins, G. (2003), “Governance capacity and stakeholder interactions in the development and management of coastal tourism: examples from Morocco and Tunisia”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 11 Nos 2/3, pp. 224-45. Carlsen, J., Getz, D. and Ali-knight, J. (2001), “The environmental attitudes and practices of family businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 281-97. Chemonics International (2006), “Promoting rural tourism”, United State Agency for International Development, Chemonics International, Washington, DC.
  • 16. Clarke, J., Denman, R., Hickman, G. and Slovak, J. (2001), “Rural tourism in Roznava Okres: The Moroccan a Slovak case study”, Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp. 193-202.Creamer, D. (1943), Shifts of Manufacturing Industries, in Industrial Location and National tourism Resources, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. industryCroy, W.G. and Hogh, L. (2002), “Endangered visitors: a phenomenological study of eco-resort development”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 254-71.Dinc, M. and Haynes, K.E. (1999), “Regional efficiency in the manufacturing sector: integrated 21 shift-share and data envelopment analysis”, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 183-99.Esteban-Mrquillas, J.M. (1972), “Reinterpretation of shift-share analysis”, Regional and Urban Economics, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 249-55.Fleischer, A. and Pizam, A. (1997), “Rural tourism in Israel”, Tourism Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 367-72. ¸˜Freire, A. (1998), Internacionalizacao – Desafios para Portugal, Editorial Verbo, Lisboa.Hazbun, W. (2003), “A new agenda for tourism development in the Arab world”, paper presented at the Conference League of Arab States, Cairo, March.Hellman, D.A. (1976), “Shift-share models as predictive tools”, Growth and Change, Vol. 7, pp. 3-8.Houston, D.B. (1967), “The shift and share analysis of regional growth: a critique”, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 577-81.Khalil, A. (2004), “Environmental services, externalities and agriculture: the case of mountain tourism in Morocco”, Electronic Journal of Agriculture and Development Economics, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 63-86.Knudsen, D.C. (2000), “Shift-share analysis: further examination of models for the description of economic change”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 34, pp. 177-98.Mabrouk, F., McDonald, M., Mocan, S. and Summa, T. (2008), The Tunisian Tourism Cluster, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.Mondal, W.I. (1992), “An evaluation of industrial recruitment initiatives and employment growth in Arkansas”, Southwest Journal of Business & Economics, Vol. 9 No. 2, p. 27.Moroccan Ministry of Tourism (2009), available at: 5-Tourisme-chiffres/ArriveeTouristes.htm (accessed May 2009).Nusser, B. (2005), Rural Tourism in Morocco: The Community Based Project in the South-Moroccan Village of Timidarte, available at: F48552FB-E651-4B23-A80A-023F8C936FE6/outline/Rural ^ _Tourism_Morocco.pdfOngsritrakul, S. and Hubbard, L. (1996), “The export market for Thai frozen shrimps in the European Union”, British Food Journal, Vol. 98 No. 8, pp. 24-8.Oppermann, M. (1996), “Rural tourism in Southern Germany”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 86-102.Peyron, M. (2003), “Promotion and protection: eco-tourism in the Moroccan Middle-Atlas”, paper presented at the Second International Workshop on Cultural Impact on Technology Development in European and Islamic Countries, Ifrane.Richardson, H.W. (1978), “The state of regional economics: a survey article”, International Regional Science Review, Vol. 3, pp. 1-48.Sharpley, R. (2001), “Rural tourism and the challenge of tourism diversification: the case of Cyprus”, Tourism Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 233-44.Sirakaya, E., Choi, H. and Var, T. (2002), “Shift-share analysis in tourism: examination of tourism employment change in a region”, Tourism Economics, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 303-24.
  • 17. BIJ Sirakaya, E., Uysal, M. and Toepper, L. (1995), “Measuring tourism performance: using a shift-share analysis: the case of South Carolina”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34 No. 2,18,1 pp. 55-61. Stevens, B.H. and Moore, C.L. (1980), “A critical review of the shift-share as a forecasting technique”, Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 20, pp. 419-37. Stillwell, F.J.B. (1970), “Further thoughts on the shift and share approach”, Regional Studies,22 Vol. 4, pp. 451-8. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Division (2007), Statistical Yearbook 2005, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Division, New York, NY. Walmsley, D.J. (2003), “Rural tourism: a case of lifestyle-led opportunities”, Australian Geographer, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 61-72. Water, A.T. (2002), “Morocco’s grand plan”, African Business, Vol. 281, pp. 58-61. WEF (2008), The Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report, World Economic Forum, Geneva. WTO (2010), Yearbook of Tourism Statistics, Data 2004-2008, World Tourism Organization, Madrid, 2010 edition. Corresponding author Jafar Alavi can be contacted at: To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: Or visit our web site for further details: