Anatolia – An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
153
promote the “common cause” and often serve as an intermediary between the different interests within destinations (Pechlaner et al., 2011). Thus, when investigating a destination’s governance, it is imperative to consider also the role of DMOs (Raich & Pechlaner, 2010). This research assumes that a fruitful way to meet this requirement is to apply the concept of corporate governance to DMOs. At least three justifications can be listed in support of this analogy. First, governance literature in the field of public management has, for some time, suggested the applicability of the corporate governance notion also to public organizations (see e.g. Bennington, 2010; Howard & Seth-Purdie, 2005). Second, in some countries, DMOs that had historically and prevalently been public organizations have undergone privatization in recent years. Similarly, the DMOs in the case study destination discussed below are primarily private-sector enterprises. They are organized and act under private law (as associations or as joint-stock companies) and, for all but one, public funding does not account for the major part of the total budget. The main source of financing for these DMOs is membership fees. Third, by making use of the corporate governance idea, the close conceptual relationship between corporate and destination governance can be taken advantage of. Previous studies on the relationship between DMOs and destinations Despite the listed good reasons, thus far, the interrelationships between destination governance and corporate governance have been largely neglected in tourism research (Pechlaner et al., 2011). The few papers dedicated to this venture either address the conceptual connections between corporate governance and destination governance (Beritelli et al., 2007; Ruhanen et al., 2010) or focus on the role of DMOs within destination governance (Bornhorst, Ritchie, & Sheehan, 2010; d’Angella & Go, 2009; Raich & Pechlaner, 2010). In a basic conceptual paper, Beritelli et al. (2007) discuss how the destination governance approach could be enriched by the integration of theoretical components from the more mature corporate governance literature. They identify four theories (transaction cost theory, property rights theory, principal agent theory, and network theory) and six dimensions (transaction costs, power asymmetries, interdependence, trust/control, knowledge, and informal as well as personal connections), which are considered pertinent contributions to the explanation of destination governance structures. Still on the conceptual front, Ruhanen et al. (2010) review the literature on corporate and political governance and identify the following interdisciplinary key elements of the governance concept: accountability, transparency, involvement, structure, effectiveness, and power. In addition to these two theoretical contributions, three other studies deal with the issue in a more practical manner. First, by analytically differentiating between the success of DMOs and the success of destinations, Bornhorst et al. (2010) show that the success of the two entities is interrelated. More precisely, they find three variables that determine the success of both destinations and DMOs: community support, marketing, and destination performance. The implications for this study are that stakeholder involvement and visibility through marketing activities, as well as destination performance, are important factors for successful DMOs and destinations. In contrast, and unique to the success of DMOs, the authors identify (amongst others) the efficient deployment of resources: “DMO managers must be cognizant that the DMO is an organization and much of its success will be determined by how well it is run and managed as an organization” (Bornhorst et al., 2010, p. 587).