nep-tur New Economics Papers
on Tourism Economics
Issue of 2011‒08‒22
two papers chosen by
Antonello Scorcu
University of Bologna

  1. How developing countries can benefit from intellectual property: the role of collective marks in tourism By Ghafele, Roya
  2. Improving the Practice of Cost Benefit Analysis in Transport By OECD

  1. By: Ghafele, Roya
    Abstract: While tourism has been praised by a variety of international organizations as a means to promote the local economy in developing countries, tourism led growth has never been seen to be supported by a developing countries’ intellectual property regimes. Intellectual property rights, particularly if owned collectively, accelerate cluster creation, an organizational form particularly beneficial for tourism. The positive externalities associated with clusters can be reinforced through the assignment of collective marks. A region’s intangible assets, its social cohesion, can be fostered through the introduction of collective marks, since it is an intellectual property rights that can be owned collectively by a given community. This paper is one of the first of its kind to flesh out a more differentiated economic value proposition of collective marks, while at the same time illustrating the economic opportunities that the intellectual property system provides to developing countries’ economies.
    Keywords: Economies of agglomeration; externalities of cluster creation; economic value proposition of collective marks
    JEL: O34 F59 Z10
    Date: 2011–03–08
  2. By: OECD
    Abstract: Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is widely recognized to be helpful, even indispensible, for making good decisions on what transport projects to fund. It essentially aims to figure out which projects offer the best value for money, one of the core criteria for making decisions. However, the practical relevance of cost-benefit analysis does not always live up to its appeal in principle. One problem is that there is disagreement about what to include in both the costs and the benefits side of the analysis, so that value for money is not always a fully transparent concept. A second problem is that value for money is only a partial criterion for decision-making, leading to disagreement about the relative importance of the results from CBA compared to other inputs into the decision-making process. Discussions at the Roundtable aimed to shed light on these conceptual problems by analysing the practice of CBA and comparing approaches to it in different countries. In short the aim was to identify a checklist of items that should be included in a socially relevant cost-benefit analysis, i.e. analysis that can be produced in reasonable time and at reasonable cost but is good enough to help resolve trade-offs.
    Date: 2011–01

This nep-tur issue is ©2011 by Antonello Scorcu. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.