Institutional environment and job well‑being on the governance of the tourism industry: a European study

              © PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. ISSN 1695-7121
Vol. 13 N.o 6. Special Issue Págs. 1387-1399. 2015
www .pasosonline.org
* Corresponding author); Professor of Management and Marketing (PhD); member of the Strategy and International
Business Research Group at the ULPGC; E­‑mail:
deybbi.cuellar@ulpgc.es
** Professor of Business Organization at the Business (PhD); and her research interest cover on different aspects of
Human Resource Management; E­‑mail:
alucia@uloyola.es
*** PhD in Management and Professor of Strategy; E­‑mail:
antonia.garcia@ulpgc.es
Institutional environment and job well­‑being
on the
governance of the tourism industry: a European study
Deybbi Cuéllar­‑Molina*
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (España)
Ana María Lucía­‑Casademunt**
Universidad Loyola Andalucía (España)
Antonia Mercedes García­‑Cabrera***
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (España)
Deybbi Cuéllar­‑Molina,
Ana María Lucía­‑Casademunt,
Antonia Mercedes García­‑Cabrera
1. Introduction
While the tourism industry is often considered important in stimulating sustainable development,
empirical evidence is still scarce and ambiguous (Fortanier and van Wijkt, 2010). In particular, authors
warn the need of widen the social (employment) dimension of sustainability in the hotel industry, both
in the quantity of local employment and its quality. Indeed, the tourism industry is an important sector
Abstract: The distribution of wealth generated in the tourism industry among the labor force should be
considered one out of the facets of the social tourism sustainability. Literature highlights that tourism firms’
practices have an impact on labor well­‑being.
However, it also warns that national institutions may condition
the adoption of these practices by firms, and so institutions might become a challenge for well­‑being.
This
study analyzes the effect of institutions on well­‑being,
and particularly it differentiates between employees and
entrepreneurs as human resources in the tourism industry. The empirical analysis carried out on a sample of
1,352 employees and 302 entrepreneurs located in 27 European countries, confirms the direct effect of national
institutions on well­‑being
at work. Because institutions would have affect human resources’ well­‑being,
the
tourism authorities should pay attention to the governance of this industry.
Keywords: Well­‑Being
At Work; Governance; Institutional Theory; Tourism Industry; European Countries.
Entorno institucional y bienestar laboral en la gobernanza del sector turístico: un estudio europeo
Resumen: La distribución de la riqueza generada por la industria turística en la fuerza laboral local repre-senta
una de las facetas del turismo social sostenible. La literatura destaca que las prácticas que aplica la em-presa
turística influyen en el bienestar laboral de los recursos humanos. Dado que las instituciones nacionales
pueden condicionar la adopción de estas prácticas, tales instituciones pueden representar un desafío para el bi-enestar.
Este trabajo analiza el efecto de las instituciones sobre el bienestar laboral y diferencia para ello entre
empleados y emprendedores en la industria turística. El análisis empírico desarrollado con 1.352 empleados y
302 emprendedores en 27 países europeos confirma el efecto de las instituciones sobre el bienestar laboral. Por
tanto, como las instituciones condicionan tal bienestar, las autoridades deben prestar más atención al gobierno
de aquellas instituciones que afectan a esta faceta de la sostenibilidad turística.
Palabras Clave: Bienestar Laboral; Gobernanza; Teoría Institucional; Sector Turístico; Países Europeos.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 6. Special Issue. Diciembre 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
1388 Institutional environment and job well­‑being
on the governance of the tourism industry
of the global economy and a significant generator of employment. According to the World Travel and
Tourism Council (WTTC, 2014) in 2013 the direct global tourism revenues reached approximately US$
2,155.4bn, 2.9% of gross domestic product (GDP), and the indirect contribution was US$ 6,990.3bn
(9.5% of GDP). This industry generated 100,894,000 direct jobs (3.4% of overall employment), being
the total contribution, including indirect jobs of 8.9% of total employment (265, 855,000 jobs). One year
later, in 2014, Travel and Tourism’s direct contribution to world GDP was US$ 2.4 trillion (2014 prices)
and 105 million jobs respectively (WTTC, 2015). Hence, generating employment is considered the most
beneficial impact that the development of tourism has (Liu and Wall, 2005).
However, quantitative data about the obvious development of the sector clearly do not reflect the
quality of those jobs. Baum (2007) characterized employment in the tourism industry as low­‑paid,
exploited, and uncertain; in 2015 he states that problems relating to human resources (HR) in the
industry remain the last issue to be addressed. Given that the HR is a key factor in the competitive
advantage of this industry, it requires a greater understanding about the fact that well­‑being
should
be the focus of business strategies (Rok and Mulej, 2014) that contributes to a high­‑quality
work
performance both to employees and to entrepreneurs. Specifically, in the current paper well­‑being
is
understood as the set of employees’ attitudes and feelings developed at the workplace (Diener, 2000)
that affect both their labor and personal lives. In particular, extant literature states that well­‑being
is
conditioned by working conditions (e.g., Keith and Schafer, 1980) and influences on positive individual
work attitudes and behavior (Boyd, 1997).
First, well­‑being
is relevant when analyzing the labor context of the tourism industry for employees,
since it is a labor­‑intensive
sector that requires a severe labor shortage. Indeed, tourism employees
face long hours in rotating shifts and night shifts, which also extend to weekends and holidays (Harris,
O’Neill, Cleveland, and Crouter, 2007). Also, employees deal with part­‑time
work, seasonal work (Jolliffe
and Farnsworth, 2003) and very low salary (Riley and Szivas, 2003).
Second, tourism entrepreneurs play an important role in shaping tourism destinations (Russell and
Faulkner, 2004) since entrepreneurs are one of the key elements in the development of the industry
(Moscardo, 2014). Hence the study of their well­‑being
also becomes an issue of particular relevance.
Entrepreneurs’ working conditions, as has already been noticed in previous studies, is characterized by
longer hours; more irregular working days compared to employees (Eden, 1975) and increased workloads
(Stephan and Roesler, 2010). Therefore their well­‑being
might also be deteriorated.
The negative effect of the stressful and demanding working conditions on well­‑being
has been
extensively documented by previous research (e.g., Keith and Schafer, 1980). Hence, it is proposed
that working conditions in the tourism industry should be considered one out of the different facets
of the social tourism sustainability, as referred to the quality of jobs (Fortanier and van Wijkt, 2010).
In other words, the way to which the wealth and well­‑being
generated by the tourism industry in a
territory are distributed among the large firms and the local HR operating in the sector, as part of the
local community (Bohdanowicz and Zientara, 2009). So, HR in this industry must be also considered
when analyzing social tourism sustainability.
Given the relevance of offering to HR in this sector the opportunity to achieve well­‑being,
it is impor-tant
to understand the factors that condition it. The literature on HR management provides evidence
of positive correlations between several organizations’ policies and practices (e.g., communication, job
participation, job design, work­‑family
balance), and indicators of well­‑being
(Gonçalves and Neves, 2012;
Grant­‑Vallone
and Donaldson, 2001). For example, work­‑life
conciliation should aim to help employees
and entrepreneurs balance personal and work contexts (Hughes and Bozionelos, 2007), so increasing
their well­‑being.
More specifically in the tourism industry low wages and limited economic benefits are
among the factors that cause greater demotivation and lesser job satisfaction (Kusluvan, Kusluvan,
Ilhan, and Buyruk, 2010). Organizations should ensure fair wage and avoid reducing costs at their
expense, especially when working in this particular industry is the only option for local populations
that depends entirely on this sector. Cheruiyot and Tarus (2015) suggest that perceived fair wage is
one of the main factors of social responsibility with respect to employees. “The hotel owner may exhibit
intrinsic virtues of being responsible, honest and trustworthy, ensuring that the employees are paid a
fair wage for their labor” (Jamal, 2004, p. 534).
However, some empirical works have found evidence of the existence of significant differences in the
way that organizations in different countries put policies to generate well­‑being
into practice (Thite,
Wilkinson, and Shah, 2012). In this respect, Brewster (2007) argues that certain societal institutions
and their cross­‑national
variations generate the existence of differences in national business systems.
Specifically, institutions are both formal rules (e.g., legislation) and informal constraints (e.g., social
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 6. Special Issue. Diciembre 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
Deybbi Cuéllar­‑Molina,
Ana María Lucía­‑Casademunt,
Antonia Mercedes García­‑Cabrera
1389
values, traditions), which set the ‘rules of the game’ organizations must respect (North, 1990). Because
national institutional arrangements are different in different countries, it is said that organizations
have to use organizational policies and practices that enable them to adapt to their environment
(Brewster, 2007). If that is true, it can be expected that national institutions condition labor well­‑being.
This argument is of high relevance because it should turn our attention toward the authorities and
tourism governance in each country. Indeed, institutional environmental changes mainly derive from
governments’ and supra­‑national
agencies’ regulations, albeit they must be required also by markets
and civil society demands (Greenwood Suddaby, and Hinings, 2002). For example, legislation is designed
by government in the executive, legislative, judicial and bureaucratic areas (Williamson, 2000).
Based on these premises, this research aims to analyze the effect of institutions on well­‑being
in
the tourism industry. With this aim in mind, an empirical analysis is carried out using data from 27
European countries. The use of the European cross­‑national
sample is highly suitable for this study as
several institutional factors generate differences between European countries in terms of well­‑being.
For
example, different sociocultural traditions and legislative frameworks (Kelly, 2004) can play a relevant
role in the defense of employee interests with respect to, among other aspects, minimal wages, work
conditions, and social benefits (Brewster, 2007).
This research potentially offers three main contributions to the literature. First, when analyzing
tourism sustainability, the environmental dimension has received substantial attention (Fortanier and
van Wijkt, 2010). However, it will be mainly the social dimension of sustainability, in the form of local
employment, where the potential contribution of the industry is strongest (ILO, 2001). This relevance
of social dimension of sustainability contrasts with the existence of scarce research of it (Fortanier and
van Wijkt, 2010). The present work studies job well­‑being
in the tourism industry and hence it makes a
contribution to the social sustainability line of inquiry. Second, this work analyzes the potential influence of
institutions on the employees and entrepreneurs’ well­‑being
in the tourism industry. Thus, it can advance
our understanding of the antecedents of well­‑being
examining the specific institutional conditions that
determine well­‑being
for this specific industry. Third, the influence of institutions on the employees and
entrepreneurs in organizations are distinctly studied. This analysis let establish whether differences exist
in the influence that institutions at country level exert on these two groups of HR. This line of enquiry may
provide new evidences, thus permitting a clearer understanding of the real influence of institutions on
well­‑being.
So the conclusions of this study may guide authorities in the decision making process in order
to guarantee enhanced policies in the governance of this industry to contribute to tourism sustainability.
2.Theoretical Issues
2.1. Well­‑being
at work
Some researchers state a bidimensional focus to study well­‑being
with two basic dimensions conceptualized
as “pleasure” and “activation or arousal” (Warr, 1987). A high or low level of arousal and vice versa may
accompany a particular degree of pleasure or displeasure, or a certain degree of mental activation can be
pleasurable or disagreeable. Warr (1987) suggests that three main axes should be considered for measuring
how well­‑being
is affected: (1) Displeased­‑Pleased
(e.g., fulfillment) that corresponds to the first dimension;
(2) Anxiety or Discomfort­‑Comfort
(e.g., positive and negative feelings of pleasure); and (3) Depression­‑Enthusiasm
(e.g., positive and negative feelings of arousal). Warr (1987) suggests that these three main
axes should be considered for measuring what affects well­‑being.
They are considered in this paper.
Given the relevance of well­‑being
it is significant to have a deep understanding of the factors that
condition it. For example, with respect to employees, literature highlights that organizations can influence
on their well­‑being
by changing such dimensions of organizational contexts as working hours, tasks
or rewards (Danna and Griffin, 1999). Indeed previous works provide evidence of positive correlations
between several organizations’ practices (e.g., job participation, work­‑family
conciliation, job design),
and indicators of well­‑being
(Gonçalves and Neves, 2012; Grant­‑Vallone
and Donaldson, 2001). With
respect to entrepreneurs, job security tends to be lower than for employees (European Commission,
2004). Despite, an entrepreneur experiences “procedural profit”. In other words, the fact of being an
entrepreneur provides more gratification than the specific economic or material success that could be
achieved (Block and Koellinger, 2009). Indeed, in tourism sector, one of the most important reasons to
start a business is seeking autonomy and finding a desirable lifestyle (Chen and Elston, 2013). That
perception of independence makes people feel more satisfied with their jobs (Hyytinen and Ruuskanen
2006), generating greater well­‑being
(Stephan and Roesler, 2010).
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 6. Special Issue. Diciembre 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
1390 Institutional environment and job well­‑being
on the governance of the tourism industry
In addition studies, such as the Global Report of GEM (2013) highlights that higher levels of entre-preneurs’
well­‑being
are evident in all areas, in comparison with people who are not owning a business.
Literature shows that entrepreneurs enjoy greater independence, control and discretion, compared to
employees who have to obey authority (Benz and Fray, 2008; Stephan and Roesler, 2010). They are
healthier and less negative than employees (Patzelt and Shepherd, 2011), factors that undoubtedly
contribute to their well­‑being.
So, empirical studies have shown evidence that entrepreneurs have
higher well­‑being
at workplace than employees (Benz and Frey, 2004; Lange, 2012; Stephan and Roesler,
2010) that contrast with other findings that point out no differences well­‑being
between employers and
employees exist (Eden, 1975). So, based on the previous literature it can be expected:
H1: Entrepreneurs’ well­‑being
will be higher than employees’ well­‑being
in the tourism industry
2.2. Governance, institutions and well­‑being
Good governance involves the coordination of institutions and stakeholders (Mazon, Moraleda, and
Fayos­‑Solà,
2012). In the tourism industry, the governance is based on sustainable planning and the need
to integrate stakeholders in the development process (Gunn, 1993). Given that different stakeholders
operate in the tourism industry, and they work ruled by their own procedures, standards, and goals
(Kuenzi and McNeely, 2008), it is necessary that tourism policies formulated by authorities base on the
coordination and collaboration of these stakeholders (Bengochea, 2009; Kerimoğlu and Çiraci, 2008).
Coordination and collaboration are necessary to implement policies aimed at good governance (d’Angella,
De Carlo, and Sainaghi, 2010). However, in the tourism industry the stakeholders’ coordination has
been usually weak (Song, Liu, and Chen, 2013) and so the intervention of authorities is necessary
(Fayos­‑Solá,
2004). In this context, the tourism governance is said to involve different mechanisms
such as institutions to reach such cooperation (Bramwell and Lane, 2011).
Specifically, institutions consist of structures and activities that give meaning to social behavior
(Scott, 1995; Sekiguchi, 2013) and act as constraints to reduce the range of feasible options through
conditioning procedures (Selznick, 1949). Thus, it can be expected that organizations operating in
similar environments use similar practices and become isomorphic (Poutsma, Lighthart and Veersma
2006). Scott (1995) differentiates cognitive, regulative and normative institutions. The regulative
dimension refers to laws existing in a national environment; the normative dimension is more related
to the cultural domain, e.g., values that are socially shared, and the cognitive dimension emphasizes
cognition and an actor’s shared perceptions of what is standard or taken for granted, e.g., suitable
organizational practices (Scott, 1995). According to the institutional approach, the influence exerted
by institutions on organizations occurs due to three different institutional pressures.
First, regulative institutions legally force organizations to adopt specific practices and these institutions
include, among others, the influence of employment legislation and the government —i.e. coercive pressures
(Farndale and Paauwe, 2007). Specially, labor regulation is enforced in organizations, and judicial system
efficiency is crucial to the effectiveness of rules and regulations to impose the adoption of specific policies
and practices in organizations. For example, regulative pressures may encourage managers to introduce
initiatives for work­‑family
conciliation at the workplace (Baek, Kelly, and Jang, 2012). Also, fiscal regulation
conditions costs and tax incentives, which could be the reason why some organizations deal with financial
constraints that result in poor labor conditions offered to employees. In addition, regulative institutions
provide the level of competitiveness that entrepreneurs need to start up their businesses, thus offering a
system of stimuli and business support programs (Busenitz, Gómez, and Spencer, 2000). All this would
contribute to their well­‑being
as it provides greater stability to their ventures.
Second, normative institutions define both socially acceptable goals —e.g. high profits— and
appropriate ways to achieve them —e.g. organization competitiveness, labor exploitation, etc. (Scott,
1995), and hence they are frequently considered social values. For example, work­‑life
balance might
be referred as a socially desirable practice. If this practice is perceived as a moral obligation (Pasamar
and Alegre, 2015), it will encourage organizations to adopt it and benefit well­‑being
and will encourage
entrepreneurs to adopt it in their own benefit. Also, when normative institutions regarding to uncertainty
avoidance social values are low, uncertain situations do not cause individuals any anxiety so that their
need for avoiding risks drops (Hofstede, 1984). In this case, employees and entrepreneurs could use
their personal self­‑control
and discretionary behavior to undertake actions to balance work and family,
thus increasing their perception of well­‑being.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 6. Special Issue. Diciembre 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
Deybbi Cuéllar­‑Molina,
Ana María Lucía­‑Casademunt,
Antonia Mercedes García­‑Cabrera
1391
Third, as organizations and entrepreneurs face common challenges in the countries where they are
located and in order to reduce the uncertainty caused by such challenges (Cantwell, Dunning, and Lundan,
2010), they apply standard solutions (Lu, 2002), thus mimicking both management fashion (Paauwe and
Boselie, 2003; Sekiguchi, 2013) and successful policies and practices implemented by other organizations
(Björkman, Fey, and Park, 2007)—i.e. cognitive pressures. Specially, after reviewing literature, it can be
distinguished two broad categories of business practices to be imitated by organizations (Durán­‑Herrera
and García­‑Cabrera,
2013): those focused on issues related to the organizations’ environment such as
entrepreneurial orientation or customer emphasis; and those other practices related to the development
of organizations’ internal resources, such as job training, appraisal systems (Paauwe and Boselie, 2003).
When any of these organizational practices become institutionalized and many organizations conform
to it, the practice causes institutional pressure (Lu, 2002).
So, the adoption and diffusion of policies and practices within and between different environments
will be conditioned by institutions (Gooderham, Nordhaug, and Ringdal, 1999), thus affecting employees’
and entrepreneurs’ well­‑being.
Although previous literature has focused on the study of regulative,
normative and cognitive institutions mainly as individual dimensions (e.g., Chowdhury and Mahmood,
2012; Meyer, Estrin, Bhaumik, and Peng, 2009), the three institutional dimensions are interconnected,
reciprocally reinforcing each other and taking the form of configurations of institutions (Szyliowicz and
Galvin, 2010). Therefore, it can stated that:
H2: The higher the configuration of institutions in a particular country favorable to implementing
policies and practices that favor well­‑being
in the tourism industry, the higher the well­‑being
in that
country.
2.3. Study method
2.3.1. Data sources and context
To test the hypotheses, the current paper examines institutional influence on employees’ well­‑being
and entrepreneurs’ well­‑being
in tourism industry, combining individual­‑level
data with country data at
an international level. Therefore, for each respondent in a country, territorial data at the national level
is aggregated in order to make it possible to analyze whether or not the level of well­‑being
is conditioned
by institutional conditions in the country where they work in the tourism industry.
Individual­‑level
data is obtained from the fifth European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS), carried
out in 2010 by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The
target population under study involves workers aged 15 years and over (16 and over in Spain, the UK and
Norway) who are employed and self­‑employed
and reside in the country being surveyed. Country­‑level
data
is obtained from the 2010 World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY) as other authors studying institutional
conditions (Durán­‑Herrera
and García­‑Cabrera,
2013; Gaur, Delios, and Singh, 2007) had previously used it.
WCY (2010) offers data from 58 countries in the 2010 edition, counting among them 31 European countries
although only 27 of them are also included in the European Survey on Working Conditions (2010). These
27 countries are analyzed in the present study because they coincide in both databases.
Some authors have provided arguments to justify comparative studies on work conditions in Europe,
such as the different legislative frameworks in these countries (Kelly, 2004). We also test the aptness of
this study by analyzing whether significant differences exist among countries with respect to employees’
and entrepreneurs’ well­‑being.
The ANOVA test was used for a mean comparison. At the country level,
significant differences are found between mean values for well­‑being
in the two sub­‑samples
(Table 1).
These results justify the convenience of studying national institutions as determinants of the employee’s
and entrepreneur’s well­‑being
across Europe.
Table 1: Anova Test by Well­‑being
in 27 European countries
Variables
Employees sample Entrepreneurs sample
F Sig F Sig
Country 4.095 .000 1.972 .005
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 6. Special Issue. Diciembre 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
1392 Institutional environment and job well­‑being
on the governance of the tourism industry
2.3.2. Sample and procedures
The total number of interviews in the EWCS in 2010 was 43,816. In the light of the objective of this
research that it applies only to the tourism industry, two sub­‑samples
were obtained which contain
1,352 employees and 302 entrepreneurs 302 in 27 European countries –mainly countries belonging
to the European Union (except Switzerland, Ukraine, Czech Republic and Russia) plus the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania and Kosovo. Later on, the information regarding
the country’s regulative, normative and cognitive institutions from WCY (2010) was aggregated to each
individual in the sub­‑samples.
From a demographic perspective, the first sub­‑sample
consists of employees who are, on average,
female 58.1% and 33 years of age or younger (51.4%). With regard to their educational level, more than
half of the respondents (50.4%) had reached the ‘Upper secondary education’. The employees’ tenure in
the current organization was 5.24 years on average; the largest percentage of employees (34.3%) was
concentrated in medium­‑sized
organizations with 10 to 49 employees. With respect to the sub­‑sample
of entrepreneurs in which more than half individuals had reached the ‘Upper secondary education’
(80.1%), are on average, male (62.9%) and 43.3 years of age or younger (53.6%). The largest percentage
of entrepreneurs (43.5%) was concentrated in small­‑sized
organizations with 2 to 4 employees.
Thus, on average, the employees sample has higher percentage of female, being younger and work
in larger organizations than the sample of entrepreneurs, who are characterized by being older, with
higher education, and to high extent men. This short comparison suggests that, generally speaking,
the entrepreneurial job is more demanding than being employees in the tourism industry.
2.3.3. Measures
Dependent variable. A scale of three items to measure employee well­‑being
was used. Specifically,
the factor analysis, which was carried out (principal components estimation) with varimax rotation,
included the following questions: a) How you have been feeling over the last two weeks ­‑
I have felt
cheerful and in good spirits; b) How you have been feeling over the last two weeks ­‑
I have felt calm
and relaxed; And c) How you have been feeling over the last two weeks ­‑
I have felt active and vigorous.
The results show that the Kaiser­‑Meyer­‑Olkin
(KMO) test and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (χ2) both
offer satisfactory levels (KMO=0.735 χ2=2.543,073***). The variance explained rises to 79.445%. The
Cronbach alpha coefficients indicate that the scales used to measure employee well­‑being
have internal
consistency (0.870).
Independent variables. Institutions were measured using indicators from the World Competitiveness
Yearbook (WCY) previously used by other authors (Durán­‑Herrera
and García­‑Cabrera,
2013; Gaur
et al., 2007). With regard to indicators, Gaur et al. (2007) selected 14 out of 321 available items in the
2001 edition of WCY that captured the dimensions of the regulative and normative institutions of a
country’s environment. Durán­‑Herrera
and García­‑Cabrera
(2013) updated and complemented Gaur
et al. (2007) measurement compiling 21 out of 327 available items in the 2012 edition of WCY to study
all three dimensions of institutions. The results show that the Kaiser­‑Meyer­‑Olkin
(KMO) test and
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (χ2) both offer satisfactory levels (KMO=0.737 χ2=60,593.332***). The
variance explained rises to 87.255%. The Cronbach alpha coefficients indicate that the scales used
to measure well­‑being
have internal consistency (0.783). The standardized values (mean is zero and
standard deviation is one) of the factors obtained from the factor analyzes were used in the regression
analyzes to test the hypotheses.
Factor 1 was called Organizational practices aimed at internal resources and productivity. This
factor included institutional indicators such as: “labor productivity”, “the productivity of companies is
supported by global strategies”, “corporate values take into account employee values”, or “employee
training is a high priority in companies”. Factor 2 was named Government practices to enhance business
competitiveness as it integrated institutional aspects such as: “legal framework encourages the competi-tiveness
of enterprises”, “political transparency exists”, “bureaucracy does not hinder business activity”,
or “political responsiveness to economic challenges”. The third factor was called Society flexibility and
openness to support competitiveness as it included institutional aspects such as: “national culture is
open to foreign ideas”, “there is flexibility for people to face challenges”, or “legal restrictions to foreign
organizations do not exist”. Finally, Factor 4 was called Firm practices aimed at external conditions, as
it comprised institutional indicators such as the “entrepreneurship of managers”, “company emphasis
on the customer” and “companies’ adaptability to market changes.
Control variables. The present study included two groups of control variables. At the organiza-tional
level, an organization size variable was measured through the total number of employees,
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 6. Special Issue. Diciembre 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
Deybbi Cuéllar­‑Molina,
Ana María Lucía­‑Casademunt,
Antonia Mercedes García­‑Cabrera
1393
and has been used in several studies –e.g., Gooderham et al. (1999). At the individual level, the
following variables were included: Gender (1: male; 2: female), Age (measured by the age of the
interviewee) and level of education (0: Pre­‑primary
education; 1: Primary education or first stage
of basic education; 2: Lower secondary or second stage of basic education; 3: Upper secondary
education; 3: Post­‑secondary
non­‑tertiary
education; 4: First stage of tertiary education; 5: Second
stage of tertiary education). Several researchers have used these variables (e.g. Jensen, Patel, and
Messersmith, 2013).
2.3.4. Data analysis
First, a correlation analysis was carried out between the independent variables in order to examine
the possibility of bias due to multicollinearity in coefficient significance tests. Second, ANOVA test was
used for a mean comparison in order to test the first hypothesis. Third, multiple linear regressions
were used to test the second hypothesis, which let analyze the main effect of independent variables. To
assess the potential for regression coefficient instability, collinearity diagnostics were also conducted
in linear regressions through variance inflation factor (VIF) and condition number.
2.3.5. Results
Table 2 shows correlations between the variables for the full sample. Regarding multicollinearity in
the data, the general rule of thumb is that the correlation between the independent variables should
not exceed 0.75. In our sample, the highest correlation is between level of education and organizational
size variables, at .172***, suggesting that multicollinearity is not a problem. In addition, our tests for
linear regressions (Table 4) show that the variance inflation factor values (VIF) range from 1.010 to
1.278, much lower than the recommended cut­‑off
threshold of 10. The highest condition number for all
the regressions is 14.369 lower than the recommended cut­‑off
of 20. All these statistics suggest that
multicollinearity is not a problem in the data.
Table 2: Correlations, means and standard deviations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Well­‑being
1
2.Organizational
practices aimed at
internal resources
­‑.
048* 1
3.Government practices
to enhance business
competitiveness
.047* .000 1
4. Society flexibility and
openness to support
competitiveness
.019 .000 .000 1
5. Firm practices aimed
at external conditions ­‑.
076** .000 .000 .000 1
6.Organization size .030 ­‑.
046 .003 .062* ­‑.
045 1
7. Gender ­‑.
104*** ­‑.
116*** ­‑.
076** .048* ­‑.
059* .038† 1
8. Age ­‑.
081*** ­‑.
004 ­‑.
069** ­‑.
032† ­‑.
013 ­‑.
103*** .109*** 1
9. Level of education .098*** ­‑.
048* .011 ­‑.
031† .025 .172*** ­‑.
036† ­‑.
131*** 1
Mean .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 3.14 1.54 36.63 2.92
Standard deviation 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.244 0.498 12.765 1.114
Levels of significance: †p < .1, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
In Table 3 it is provided the results of the ANOVA test used for a mean comparison between employees
and entrepreneurs with respect to their levels of well­‑being.
Significant differences were not found,
so hypothesis H1 is not supported. In particular, the mean value of the entrepreneur sub­‑sample
(=­‑.
0114297) is slightly larger than the employee sub­‑sample
(=­‑.
0081578), as theoretically expected, but
the difference is not enough for being statistically significant.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 6. Special Issue. Diciembre 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
1394 Institutional environment and job well­‑being
on the governance of the tourism industry
Table 3: Anova Test by Employees and Entrepreneurs
Variable Sub­‑sample
Mean F Sig
Well­‑being
Employee ­‑.
0081578
1.143 .145
Entrepreneur ­‑.
0114297
Table 4 shows the regressions estimated to analyze the direct effects proposed in the second
hypothesis. The results from Model 1 and Model 2 (step 2) confirm H2 and verify the relevance that
institutions exert on employees’ and entrepreneurs’ well­‑being.
Specifically, we identify negative, and
positive significant effects (β=­‑.
063*, β=­‑.
073** and β=.066*) for employees sample. These effects were
not similar to those identified for the sub­‑sample
of entrepreneurs (Model 2, step 2) (β=­‑.
105†, β=­‑.
089†
and β=.089† respectively). Specifically, institutions have a significant capacity to increase or decrease
well­‑being
in the employees sample, whereas have a slight influence in the sample of entrepreneurs
sample. These results offer evidence of the employees’ well­‑being
are more dependent of the environment
and context conditions rather than entrepreneurs’ well­‑being.
Table 4: Results of models estimated and hypothesis tests
Employees sample Entrepreneurs sample
Variables Model 1
Employee’ well­‑being
Model 2
Entrepreneurs’ well­‑being
Step 1: Controls
Gender ­‑.
104*** ­‑.
075
Age ­‑.
083** .070
Level of education ­‑.
097*** .151*
Organization Size .022 .060
Step 2: Controls + Main effects
Gender ­‑.
118*** ­‑.
109†
Age ­‑.
081** .049
Level of education ­‑.
126*** .172*
Organization Size .016 .029
Organizational practices
aimed at internal resources ­‑.
063* ­‑.
105†
Government practices
to enhance business
competitiveness
­‑.
006 .089†
Society flexibility and
openness to support
competitiveness
.066* .063
Organizational practices
aimed at external
conditions
­‑.
073** ­‑.
089†
ΔR2 1.3% 3%
ΔF 4.328 2.259
F 7.132*** 2.454†
Final adjusted R2 3.6% 3.8%
VIF Lower ­‑Upper
limits 1.010­‑1.278
1.049­‑1.145
Levels of significance: †p < .1, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 6. Special Issue. Diciembre 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
Deybbi Cuéllar­‑Molina,
Ana María Lucía­‑Casademunt,
Antonia Mercedes García­‑Cabrera
1395
The results show that one out of the four configurations of national institutions (Government practices
to enhance business competitiveness) identified in this study has not effect on the employees’ well­‑being
(Model 1 step 2) whereas it influences entrepreneurs’ well­‑being.
In addition, while institutional
configuration related to Society flexibility and openness to support competitiveness affect positive and
significantly in the development of employees’ well­‑being,
does not affect entrepreneurs’ well­‑being.
So, the results show that there exist differences in the influence of configuration of institutions on
well­‑being
at European organizations in the tourism industry.
3. Conclusions
The current research has aimed to analyze the effect of institutions on well­‑being
in the tourism
industry, and particularly distinguishing between employees and entrepreneurs in this industry. To this,
the work uses a dataset obtained from 27 European countries that combined macro­‑
and micro­‑level
data, that is, information about national institutions and about HR level of well­‑being,
respectively.
First, our findings indicate that there is no statistically difference between entrepreneurs’ well­‑being
and employees’ well­‑being.
This contrast with the existence of an extensive literature that has found
higher levels of entrepreneurs’ well­‑being
in comparison with employees (Benz and Frey, 2004; GEM,
2013; Lange, 2012; Stephan and Roesler, 2010), albeit some authors have no found differences in
psychological well­‑being
between employers and employees (Eden, 1975). An explanation for our
results may be related to the specific conditions in the tourism industry. In particular, these results
might suggest that working conditions in this industry put in a same position to entrepreneurs and
employees with respect to well­‑being.
For example, although entrepreneurs are said to enjoy autonomy
and independence (Hyytinen and Ruuskanen 2006) and experience “procedural profit” (Block and
Koellinger, 2009), among other advantages when comparing with employees, these positive working
conditions are not enough to increase their well­‑being.
Other adverse issues such as the less job security
(European Commission, 2004), the long hours in rotating shifts and night shifts which also extend to
weekends and holidays (Harris, O’Neill, Cleveland, and Crouter, 2007), among other stressful factors
that are common for both entrepreneurs and employees in this industry, might justify these results.
Second, our findings indicate that institutional configurations of national regulative, normative
and cognitive institutions influence on employees’ and entrepreneurs’ well­‑being.
Consequently, our
results support the thesis that the national environment determines attitudes and feelings developed
at the workplace that affect both their labor and personal lives in the tourism industry. Among the four
identified institutional configurations (Organizational practices aimed at internal resources, Government
practices to enhance business competitiveness, Society flexibility and openness to support competitiveness
and Organizational practices aimed at external conditions) this work confirms the importance of all of
them to condition well­‑being.
In particular, Government practices to enhance business competitiveness
positively condition entrepreneurs’ well­‑being,
whereas Society flexibility and openness to support
competitiveness positively condition employees’ well­‑being.
On the one hand, the first is a configuration
based on legal framework that encourages the competitiveness of enterprises, the inexistence of
bureaucracy that hinders business activity or the political responsiveness to economic challenges. All
these institutions provide flexibility and efficiency to firms and facilitate greater stability to ventures,
so positively conditioning entrepreneurs’ well­‑being.
On the other hand, Society flexibility and openness
to support competitiveness, involves institutions such as national culture is open to foreign ideas, there
is flexibility for people to face challenges or legal restrictions to foreign organizations do not exist. This
set of institutions stimulates organizations to use more flexible posts that let HR to take an active role
in the organization of their own daily work and hence in adapting it in order to successfully bridge
work and family needs in this demanding industry. However, other two configurations of institutions,
Organizational practices aimed at internal resources and Organizational practices aimed at external
conditions erode well­‑being
in all the analyzed sub­‑samples.
It can happen because these institutions
involve organizational practices that emphasize the firm’s attention to other resources, policies and
stakeholders different from the HR –e.g., labor productivity, the productivity of organizations is supported
by global strategies, the customer orientation, etc.
Considering this, some pertinent questions that deserve to be answered can be formulated: What
if the national institutions are unsuitable as they erode well­‑being
in the tourism industry? Is the
institutional environment a challenge for the well­‑being
of employees and entrepreneurs who work
in the tourism industry in Europe? Social tourism sustainability exists in these developed countries?
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 6. Special Issue. Diciembre 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
1396 Institutional environment and job well­‑being
on the governance of the tourism industry
What about organizations’ competitiveness in these countries if well­‑being
is a prerequisite for HR to
show positive work attitudes and behavior (Boyd, 1997)? How can organizations and entrepreneurs
deal with the adverse institutional environment in order to effectively promote well­‑being?
The answer
to this question requires further research.
The current paper shows several important practical implications. First, because the institutions
affect employees’ and entrepreneurs’ well­‑being,
the tourism authorities should pay attention to the
governance of this industry. Legislation and business practices in the tourism industry, among others
institutions, and how they are applied in the country must be considered of high relevance to increase
well­‑being
as a form of social tourism sustainability. For example, bringing information about successful
experiences of institutions that stimulate well­‑being
into the public domain, or offering recognition
to such organizations to show society they are valued can gradually introduce cultural values that
encourage both the proper institutions and the use of business practices that increase well­‑being
at work.
Finally, any generalization of the conclusions of this study is subject to a number of limitations. First,
although the data used in this research is related to a great number of countries, it was compiled from
27 European countries. Thus, our results should not be fully generalized without first determining if
the geographical context and the Western culture which characterizes the organizations and countries
concerned, contributes to understanding the role of institutions as antecedents human resources’ well­‑being
in the tourism industry. Consequently, we recommend examining these results in comparison to
other geographic locations, e.g., the Arabic world, and Asian cultures. The second limitation concerns our
ability to make causal inferences from the data. This is limited by the use of a cross­‑sectional
design.
For example, our findings cannot describe how the same employees and entrepreneurs would perceive
their well­‑being
if institutional changes took place in their countries. Future research studying these
variables would benefit from a longitudinal research design.
Bibliografia
Baek, K., Kelly, E.L., and Jang, Y.S.
2012. Work­‑family
policies in Korean organizations: Human resources management and institutional
explanations. Asian Business & Management 11(5):515­‑539.
Baum, T.
2007. Human resources in tourism: still waiting for change. Tourism Management 28(6):1383­‑1399.
Bengochea, A.
2009. Hacia una política turística en Europa: directrices y tendencias recientes. Revista de Análisis
Turístico 7:5­‑21.
Benz, M., and Frey, B.S.
2004. Being independent raises happiness at work. Swedish Economic Policy Review 11(2):95­‑134.
Benz, M., and Fray, B. S.
2008. Being independent is a great thing: Subjective evaluations of self­‑employment
and hierarchy.
Economica 75:362­‑383.
Björkman, I., Fey, C.F., and Park, H.J.
2007. Institutional theory and MNC subsidiary HRM practices: Evidence from a three­‑country
study.
Journal of International Business Studies 38(3):430­‑446.
Block, J., and Koellinger, P.
2009. I can’t get no satisfaction—Necessity entrepreneurship and procedural utility. Kyklos 62(2):191­‑209.
Bohdanowicz, P., and Zientara, P.
2009 Hotel companies’ contribution to improving the quality of life of local communities and the well­‑being
of their employees. Tourism and Hospitality Research 9(2):147­‑158.
Boyd, A.
1997. Employee traps­‑corruption
in the workplace. Management Review 86(8):9–22.
Bramwell, B., and Lane, B.
2011. Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
19(4/5):411–421.
Brewster, C.
2007. A European perspective on HRM. European Journal of International Management 1(3):239–259.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 6. Special Issue. Diciembre 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
Deybbi Cuéllar­‑Molina,
Ana María Lucía­‑Casademunt,
Antonia Mercedes García­‑Cabrera
1397
Busenitz, L.W., Gómez, C., and Spencer, J.W. (
2000. Country institutional profiles: Interlocking entrepreneurial phenomena. Academy of Management
Journal 43(5):994­‑1003.
Cantwell, J., Dunning, J.H., and Lundan, S.M.
2010. An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: The co­‑evolution
of
MNEs and the institutional environment. Journal of International Business Studies 41(4):567­‑586.
Chen, S. C., and Elston, J. A.
2013. Entrepreneurial motives and characteristics: An analysis of small restaurant owners. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 35:294­‑305.
Cheruiyot, T. K., and Tarus, D. K.
2015. Modeling Employee Social Responsibility as an Antecedent to Competitiveness Outcomes. SAGE
Open 5(1):2158244014567418.
Chowdhury, S. D., and Mahmood, M. H.
2012. Societal institutions and HRM practices: an analysis of four European multinational subsidiaries
in Bangladesh. International. Journal of Human Resource Management 23(9):1808­‑1831.
d’Angella, F., De Carlo, M., and Sainaghi, R.
2010. Archetypes of destination governance: a comparison of international destinations. Tourism
Review 65(4):61­‑73.
Danna, K., and Griffin, R. W.
1999. Health and well­‑being
in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of
Management 25(3):357­‑384.
Diener, E.
2000. Subjective well­‑being:
The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American
psychologist 55(1):34­‑37.
Durán­‑Herrera,
J.J., and García­‑Cabrera,
A.M.
2013. Crisis and MNEs as institutional entrepreneurs: An analysis from a co­‑evolutionary
perspective.
Proceedings of the 9th Iberian International Business Conference, Braga, Portugal.
Eden, D.
1975. Organizational Membership vs. Self­‑Employment:
Another Blow to the American Dream.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 1(1):79­‑94.
Farndale, E., and Paauwe, J.
2007. Uncovering competitive and institutional drivers of HRM practices in multinational corporations.
Human Resource Management Journal 17(4):355­‑375.
Fayos­‑Solà,
E.
2004. Política turística en la era de la globalización. Mediterráneo Económico 5:215­‑232.
Fortanier, F., and Van Wijk, J.
2010. Sustainable tourism industry development in sub­‑Saharan
Africa: Consequences of foreign hotels
for local employment. International Business Review 19(2):191­‑205.
Gaur, A. S., Delios, A., and Singh, K.
2007. Institutional environments, staffing strategies, and subsidiary performance. Journal of Mana‑gement
33(4):611­‑636.
Gonçalves, S. P., and Neves, J.
2012. The Link between Perceptions of Human Resource Management Practices and Employee Well­‑being
at Work. Advances in Psychology Study 1(1):31­‑38.
Gooderham, P. N., Nordhaug, O., and Ringdal, K.
1999. Institutional and rational determinants of organizational practices: Human resource management
in European firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(3):507­‑531.
Grant­‑Vallone,
E. J., and Donaldson, S. I.
2001. Consequences of work­‑family
conflict on employee wellbeing over time. Work and Stress 15:214­‑226.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., and Hinings, C. R.
2002. Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized
fields. Academy of management journal 45(1):58­‑80.
Gunn, C.
1993. Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts and Cases. Washington D.C.: Taylor and Francis.
Harris, R.R., O’Neill, J. W., Cleveland, J.N., and Crouter, A.C.
2007. A model of workfamily dynamics of hotel managers. Annals of Tourism Research 34:66­‑87.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 6. Special Issue. Diciembre 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
1398 Institutional environment and job well­‑being
on the governance of the tourism industry
Hofstede, G.
1984. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work­‑related
values. California: Sage Publications.
Hughes, J., and Bozionelos, N.
2007. Work life balance as source of job dissatisfaction and withdrawal attitudes. An exploratory study
on the views of male workers. Personnel Review 36(1):145­‑154.
Hyytinen, A. and Ruuskanen, O­‑P.
2006. What makes an entrepreneur independent? Evidence from time use survey, The research institute
of the Finnish Economy 1029.
Jamal, T.B.
2004. Virtue ethics and sustainable tourism pedagogy: Prognosis, principles and practice. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 12(6):530­‑545.
Jensen, J.M., Patel, P.C., and Messersmith, J.G.
2013. High­‑performance
work systems and job control: consequences for anxiety, role overload, and
turnover intentions. Journal of Management 39(6):1669­‑1724.
Jolliffe, L., and Farnsworth, R.
2003. Seasonality in tourism employment: human resource challenges. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 15(6):312­‑316.
Keith, P.M., and Schafer, R.B.,
1980. Role strain and depression in two job families. Family Relations 29:483­‑488.
Kelly, J.
2004. Social Partnership Agreements in Britain: Labor Cooperation and Compliance. Industrial
Relations, 43:267­‑292.
Kerimoğlu, E., and Çiraci, H.
2008. Sustainable tourism development and a governance model for Frig Valley. ITU A| Z 5(2):22­‑43.
Kuenzi, C., and McNeely, J.
2008. Nature­‑based
tourism. In Global Risk Governance, pp. 155­‑178.
Netherlands: Springer
Kusluvan, S., Kusluvan, Z., Ilhan, I., and Buyruk, L.
2010. The human dimension a review of human resources management issues in the tourism and
hospitality industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51(2):171­‑214.
ILO
2001. Human resources development, employment and globalization in the hotel, catering and tourism sector,
Report for discussion at the tripartite meeting on the human resources development, employment and
globalization in the hotel, catering and tourism sector. Geneva: International Labour Office. TMHCT/2001.
Lange, T.
2012. Job satisfaction and self­‑employment:
autonomy or personality? Small Business Economics
38(2):165­‑177.
Liu, A., and Wall, G.
2005. Human resources development in China. Annals of Tourism Research 32(3):689­‑71.
Lu, J.W.
2002. Intra and Inter­‑organizational
imitative behaviour: Institutional influences on Japanese firms’
entry mode choice. Journal of International Business Studies 33(1):19­‑37.
Mazon, A. I. M., Moraleda, L. F., and Fayos­‑Solà,
E.
2012. Turismo como instrumento de desarrollo: Una visión alternativa desde factores humanos, sociales
e institucionales. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural 10(5):437­‑439.
Meyer, K.E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S.K., and Peng, M.W.
2009. Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management
Journal 30(1):61­‑80.
Moscardo, G.
2014. Tourism and Community Leadership in Rural Regions: Linking Mobility, Entrepreneurship,
Tourism Development and Community Well­‑Being.
Tourism Planning & Development 11(3):354­‑370.
North, D. C.
1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Paauwe, J., and Boselie, P.
2003. Challenging ‘strategic HRM’ and the relevance of the institutional setting. Human Resource
Management Journal 13(3):56­‑70.
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. 13 N° 6. Special Issue. Diciembre 2015 ISSN 1695-7121
Deybbi Cuéllar­‑Molina,
Ana María Lucía­‑Casademunt,
Antonia Mercedes García­‑Cabrera
1399
Parent­‑Thirion
A
2012. 5th European Working Conditions Survey: Overview Report. Publications Office of the European
Union.
Pasamar and Alegre
2015. Adoption and use of work­‑life
initiatives: Looking at the influence of institutional pressures and
gender. European Management Journal 33:214­‑224.
Patzelt, H., and Shepherd, D.A.
2011. Recognizing opportunities for sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
35(4):631­‑652.
Poutsma, E., Ligthart, P. E., and Veersma, U.
2006. The diffusion of calculative and collaborative HRM practices in European firms. Industrial
Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 45(4):513­‑546.
Riley, M., and Szivas, E.
2003. Pay determination: A socio­‑economic
framework. Annals of Tourism Research 30(2):446­‑464.
Rok, M., and Mulej, M.
2014. CSR­‑based
model for HRM in tourism and hospitality. Kybernetes 43(3/4):346­‑362.
Russell, R., and Faulkner, B.
2004. Entrepreneurship, chaos and the tourism area lifecycle. Annals of tourism research 31(3):556­‑579.
Scott, W.R.
1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand OAKS, CA: Sage.
Sekiguchi, T.
2013. Theoretical implications from the case of performance­‑based
human resource management practices
in Japan: management fashion, institutionalization and strategic human resource management
perspectives. International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(3):471­‑486.
Selznick, P.
1949. TVA and the grass roots; a study in the sociology of formal organization. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Song, H., Liu, J. and Chen, G.
2013. Tourism value chain governance: Review and prospects. Journal of Travel Research 52:15­‑28.
Stephan, U., and Roesler, U.
2010. Health of entrepreneurs vs. employees in a naional representative sample. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology 83(3):717­‑738.
Szyliowicz, D., and Galvin T.
2010. Applying broader strokes: extending institutional perspectives and agendas for international
entrepreneurship research. International Business Review 19:317­‑332.
Thite, M., Wilkinson, A., and Shah, D.,
2012. Internationalization and HRM strategies across subsidiaries in multinational corporations from
emerging economies ­‑
A conceptual framework. Journal of World Business 47(2):251­‑258.
Warr, P.
1987. Work, Unemployment and Mental Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
World Competitiveness yearbook
2010. Lausanne, Switzerland: IMD World Competitiveness Center:
Williamson, O.E.
2000. The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. American Economic Association
38(3) 595­‑613.
WTTC
2014. Economic Impact of Travel and Tourism 2014. Annual Update <http://www.wttc.org
WTTC
2015. Economic Impact of Travel and Tourism 2015. Annual Update <http://www.wttc.org
Financial support from Spain’s Economy and Competitiveness National Department (Project: ECO2013-
-41762-P) is gratefully acknowledged by Antonia M. García Cabrera.
Recibido: 25/07/2015
Reenviado: 07/09/2015
Aceptado: 22/10/2015
Sometido a evaluación por pares anónimos