Recent years have accumulated signs of growing tension in important tourist destinations. This has been seen in the debate on tolls to enter Plaza España (Seville), the demands for a ban on the purchase of housing by foreigners (Balearic Islands) or the growing concern about the proliferation of tourist apartments and their impact on the rental of large cities (València, Barcelona, ??Madrid). Add the difficulties of residence for education or health officials, with caravans as homes or plane trips between islands to have a room (Mallorca) or the widespread protest against the tourism model (Canary Islands). And add that last week Venice began a world experiment: a mandatory fee to enter the city, while in Japan the authorities of a municipality with spectacular views of Mount Fuji have placed screens to discourage overflowing tourism.
The reader will forgive me for that long list, but this extensive and diverse catalog allows us to highlight the common denominator that emerges: that of the growing conflict between the costs for the community of using certain spaces and the private appropriation of the bulk of their benefits. Let’s go by parts.
It is true that tourism boosts employment and, therefore, national income: last April, nearly 200,000 new affiliates corresponded to this sector, and this generates more consumption and more collection (tax and contributions). But don’t forget that, when it comes to business profits, where they are generated and where they are earned are surely two very different places.
Furthermore, and despite the creation of jobs, there are other negative aspects that cannot be ignored. First, it reinforces a labor-intensive production model, generally immigrant, with low wages and low productivity. Second, it negatively impacts the housing market, both for purchase and rental: the difficulties of access in certain territorial areas cannot be separated from the tourism boom. Finally, there are also other negative externalities (noise, dirt, overcrowding, safety) that should be considered when evaluating costs and benefits.
For better or worse, we are a country extraordinarily dependent on tourism. It is what it is, true, and we cannot do without it. But this does not mean that we do not try to correct the model towards one of higher quality. But to do this, and beyond the tourist tax, we must make it more expensive: Is a reduced VAT for hotels and restaurants, or a fuel subsidy for transport, convenient for us? I don’t believe it. Unfortunately, higher quality tourism implies higher prices for the consumer and should also translate into higher salaries and lower employment growth. This is the debate. It is already served. Does anyone dare to start it seriously?