That nationalism is a kind of collectivism or modern-tribalism is illustrated by a current phenomenon: foreigners seem so disliked that, in some people’s views, “we” should neither import from, nor export to, “them.” On the import side, foreigners—foreign producers or their governments or the latter’s taxpayers—are disliked because they produce goods at such a low cost that “our” producers can’t compete. As for “our” greedy merchants who import things that “our” consumers want, all are greedy non-patriots. Since the 17th or 18th century, an important dimension of progress has been to economically and morally smother these emotions, or so one may have thought.
On the export side, consider tourism, where a new protectionism seems to be rising. Incoming tourism is an export to foreigners, whether from other countries or other regions (and is entered as such in the national accounts and the trade balance). Tourists, like foreign importers, use “our” resources (capital, labor, land) to satisfy their demands. Hence, the emerging claims for restricting tourism. Tourists intrude into “our” environment and, at least temporarily, undermine the amenities they have no right to—even if some of “us” want to welcome some of them into their homes or commercial venues.
The Financial Times reports (Eleni Varvitsioti and Barney Jopson, “Greece Cracks Down on Excessive Tourism,” September 8, 2024):
Greece has said it will crack down on short-term holiday rentals and cruise ship traffic as part of a set of measures to curb excessive tourism in the Mediterranean country. …
Following similar limits imposed in Spain, Greece is also taking steps to regulate short-term rentals on online platforms such as Airbnb. Mitsotakis announced a one-year ban on new short-term rentals in three areas of Athens. Tourists often start or finish their holiday in the historic Greek capital before moving on to an island destination.
Andreas Chiou, president of the Greek Property Managers Association, said the ban was driven by pressure from hotel owners.
It appears that “we” should not let “our” greedy shopkeepers, owners of restaurants, hotels, or Airbnb accommodations benefit from tourism. That these are citizens as much as the locals inconvenienced by travelers is ignored by many people, so accustomed are they to governments taking sides among their flock.
Imagine a government (local, state, or national) posting, around the territory under its jurisdiction, signs warning “We hate tourists” or “Here, we only sell local.” This would be a reversion to previous ages of mankind, of which the tribal or collective “we” is reminiscent. These emotions ignore the idea so well developed in John Hicks’s book A Theory of Economic History: the rise of the merchant, which started in the city-states of Ancient Greece, marked the first stage of the passage from the custom or command society to the market society.
Incidentally, note here an example of the symmetrical property of “externalities.” Tourists can be said to create externalities for certain locals, but locals also create externalities for certain tourists: if the locals were not there, many tourist amenities would be enhanced: unspoiled nature, less crowded beaches and Acropolis, and so forth. Private property is a powerful means of internalizing externalities but, in any liberal philosophy, the locals do not collectively own the shopkeepers nor any individual’s house, preferences, and liberty.
It is true that travelers come with costs, but they reimburse them by paying for the resources they use and what they consume in hotels, Airbnb rooms, restaurants, etc. Only in public places, in the sense of the commons, do they, as well as the locals, generally do not pay fees. This is a general problem of public property, and few would object to non-discriminatory fees or taxes being equally charged to tourists and locals who use the commons. Higher general port fees might be justifiable, as opposed to special taxes on cruise ships. Even in public museums, foreigners and local alikes generally pay fees, or should.
Note how on free markets, higher demand for private goods and services, whether by locals or tourists, will automatically lead to higher prices, lower quantity demanded, and thus rationing of the scarce amenities—assuming of course that the “benevolent” government does not cap these prices. In the case of protectionism as in dirigisme generally, discrimination substitutes for prices. A free-market society largely avoids such public discrimination by letting individuals and their voluntary associations or corporations solve any conflict through freedom of contract. Collectivism—whether rationalized by ideology, the greed of the rulers and their supporters, or through special interests capturing government—is a modern remnant of tribalism, as Friedrich Hayek argued.
******************************
The ideal of protectionism in tourism
