Introduction
Southeast Asia, particularly the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), has emerged as a major tourism hub, with its ten diverse member nations. Mainland countries such as Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam draw cultural tourists, while maritime nations like Indonesia and the Philippines focus on marine tourism. Meanwhile, Malaysia and Singapore have positioned themselves as leaders in high-value-added sectors, including meetings, incentives, conferences, and exhibitions (MICE), as well as medical and halal tourism. Strategically located between India and China, the region attracts visitors from these major markets as well as intra-ASEAN travelers. In the wake of the pandemic, domestic tourism has surged, fueled by economic growth and improved infrastructure. Today, both international and domestic markets play a crucial role in the region’s tourism recovery.
Tourism development in the region has gradually shifted from a mass tourism model focused on quantity to a more sustainable approach that emphasizes the quality of visitor experiences. The development goals have also shifted their primary focus from economic growth to social development. This transition has created significant opportunities for local communities to leverage their cultural heritage and participate in tourism initiatives. Cultural heritage plays a central role in defining the region’s global tourism appeal, with countries such as Malaysia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam integrating culture and tourism under the same ministry. This institutional alignment underscores the strong connection between cultural heritage and tourism governance in the region.
Governance serves as the link between state intervention and societal autonomy, a concept traditionally examined within Western contexts. It encompasses four key modes: hierarchical, market, network, and community approaches. The hierarchical model refers to state-led governance, while the market-based model allows for self-regulation with state support. The network approach balances both through public-private partnerships, whereas the community model emphasizes direct citizen involvement in tourism governance. This article examines how the transition from hierarchical to non-hierarchical tourism governance in Southeast Asia is influenced by the region’s historical and socio-political contexts. It emphasizes that effective governance requires collaborative efforts among diverse stakeholders, not only in the planning and oversight of tourism initiatives but also in facilitating knowledge transfer to support sustainable development.
Hierarchical Forms of Governance
The hierarchical mode of governance, a centralized and top-down system where the state exerts influence over policymaking and narrative formation, has historical roots in Southeast Asia’s colonial past. European rule institutionalized heritage conservation and linked it to tourism, particularly in former French Indochina (present-day Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia). After gaining independence in the mid-twentieth century, Southeast Asian governments used heritage as a tool for nationalism, framing it as a symbol of an imagined pre-colonial golden era. Governments played a key role in securing UNESCO Cultural Heritage Site designations for sites such as Angkor in Cambodia, Luang Prabang in Laos, Ayutthaya in Thailand, and the Central Sector of Thang Long Citadel in Vietnam. These efforts reinforced national narratives through state-controlled tourism and official tour guides.
In unitary states like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar, strong ties between the government and certified travel businesses drive tourism but often exclude local communities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In early-stage market economies, this close relationship between the state and business can lead to corruption, favoritism toward state-owned enterprises, and inadequate stakeholder engagement. As a result, balancing social and economic development remains a challenge.
Non-Hierarchical Forms of Governance
Non-hierarchical governance, based on decentralized and participatory systems, allows multiple stakeholders to share decision-making responsibilities. Given that tourism is inherently place-based, it naturally reflects the unique aspects of each locality. In peripheral areas with minimal central regulation, local traditions and ethnic lifestyles become valuable assets for cultural tourism. By fostering broader stakeholder participation, decentralized tourism development promotes more equitable resource distribution.
Local community involvement is essential in leveraging tourism for economic growth and poverty reduction. Community-based tourism (CBT), a model rooted in participatory governance, emphasizes active community involvement in tourism development and management. This model helps revitalize local cultures, preserve indigenous languages, and maintain customs and traditions while contributing to national Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In some cases, CBT has successfully included marginalized communities, ensuring a more equitable distribution of tourism revenue. However, critics argue that small-scale CBT initiatives often struggle with financial sustainability due to weak market linkages, pseudo-participation, inadequate business training, and commodification of traditional lifestyles. Research on CBT in Vietnam highlights how H’Mong cultural identity attracts tourists while integrating traditional livelihoods, such as horticulture, into the tourism economy. Yet, external factors— including fluctuating demand and the commodification of culture—threaten traditional ways of life.
Pro-poor tourism (PPT) policies aim to alleviate poverty by increasing economic opportunities for marginalized communities while minimizing social and environmental costs. Countries such as Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar have implemented PPT strategies to empower ethnic groups and foster local development. However, PPT faces significant challenges, including a narrow focus on poverty that may alienate key tourism stakeholders, such as managers and investors, limiting opportunities for expansion. Additionally, while PPT aims to benefit disadvantaged groups, it often lacks a clear strategy for ensuring the equitable distribution of economic gains.
Collaborative Governance for Sustainable Tourism Development
The effectiveness of both CBT and PPT depends on the extent to which locals can participate economically in the tourism industry. Research indicates that many villages receive limited tourism benefits due to structural constraints unique to each community’s socioeconomic and institutional environment. To ameliorate this issue, a collaborative governance approach to tourism development in Southeast Asia is essential. As a subset of non-hierarchical governance, this approach prioritizes strategies that address structural barriers to community participation by promoting knowledge transfer among various stakeholders.
An example of successful collaborative governance is The Akha Experience in northern Laos, which brought together eight villages, NGOs, development agencies, and private tour operators. Groups like Tiger Trail Outdoor Adventures, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), and the Phongsali Alternative Development Fund (PADF)partnered with the Laotian government to train locals, while private tour operators connected them to global markets. This initiative integrated community-led development with poverty reduction efforts, addressing some of the weaknesses inherent in both CBT and PPT models and creating a more sustainable tourism framework.
NGO partnerships play a vital role in strengthening local capacity, while collaboration with tourism businesses expands market opportunities for host communities. Although initiatives like The Akha Experience have been successful in destination promotion and improving economic viability, challenges remain in ensuring effective knowledge transfer from external agencies, such as tour operators and development organizations, to local stakeholders. Barriers like limited skills, financial constraints, poor organization, exclusion from formal tourism networks, and insufficient government support continue to hinder community participation. To generate long-term economic benefits, collaborative governance must go beyond addressing these structural limitations by also fostering local leadership and adaptability in tourism development.
The political and economic contexts of Southeast Asian states differ significantly from those of Western nations. Unitary states such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar, where policy frameworks and development planning are centrally controlled, tend to accept collaborative governance and partnership networks more readily than fully community-led tourism models. For collaborative governance to be effective, two key factors must be considered.
First, in low-income Southeast Asian countries, persistent socio-economic inequalities present significant challenges for community leadership in adopting participatory tourism. Hence, external interventions and partnerships are necessary to create inclusive governance models that ensure tourism benefits reach impoverished communities.
Second, governance structures must remain adaptable, integrating diverse stakeholders such as governments, community leaders, and private tourism operators. Successful knowledge transfer to local communities depends on the careful selection of target groups and an understanding of their cultural resources, resilience to market-driven changes, and social dynamics. Vietnam’s transformation of Hoi An into a renowned heritage tourist destination exemplifies the importance of strong local leadership and community adaptability in leveraging cultural assets for sustainable development.
Conclusion
Cultural heritage tourism in Southeast Asia has gradually transitioned from a mass tourism model to a more sustainable approach, alongside a transition in governance from hierarchical to non-hierarchical models. This evolution reflects a broader movement from centralization to decentralization, emphasizing the role of communities and partnerships in decision-making. While hierarchical governance continues to shape nationally significant cultural heritage and market-driven tourism in urban areas, non-hierarchical models—such as networks and community-led initiatives—drive bottom-up development in peripheral regions. These participatory governance structures play a vital role in poverty reduction and improved living standards across Southeast Asia. However, successful decentralization depends on effectively bridging knowledge and resource gaps between external agencies and local stakeholders.
Effective tourism governance in Southeast Asia must be attuned to the region’s historical, cultural, and socio-political contexts. The institutional frameworks that regulate tourism services are shaped by complex historical processes and influenced by local sociopolitical and cultural values. Policymaking in this sector requires a deep understanding of these social dynamics while accounting for the diversity, flexibility, and adaptability of each target community. It is important to recognize that governance typologies were primarily developed within Western liberal democratic settings. The four main governance models—hierarchies, markets, networks, and communities—provide a useful framework for analyzing tourism governance, but they align more closely with Western democratic contexts. When applied to developing Southeast Asia, historical and cultural factors may complicate the effectiveness of both hierarchical and non-hierarchical governance models.
. . .
Huong T. Bui is a professor of Tourism and Hospitality at the College of Sustainability and Tourism, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (APU), Japan. She has engaged in research on heritage tourism, heritage politics, and disaster risk management, as well as consulting on tourism development projects in Southeast Asia. This article is written in her capacity as a scholar and does not reflect any policy or opinion of the respective governments of Southeast Asia.
Image Credit: Diego Delso, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
ns
