Should foreign visitors pay more than locals?

Commentary: My longest and best essay. There were very few and rather insignificant mistakes (now there should not be any). Even my teacher admitted that it was very well written. And comming from him, that really means something :).
Moreover, I did quite a lot of research before I had started writing it, so there are some interesting facts, too.
Enjoy if you want!

Before passing any judgement, let us have a short introduction to the economic importance of tourism and international and domestic arrivals. According to the WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council), tourism contributes to both world GDP and employment by 10%. The Czech Statistical Office claims that tourism makes 3% of GDP and 4% of employment in the Czech Republic. An UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organisation) survey has shown that 70% of overnights are represented by locals. In the Czech Republic, foreigners stand for a minority as well. However, all of the above mentioned sources agree that international visitors spend on their holiday more money than the country’s citizens do. But does it also mean they would be willing to pay more than locals for the same service? Would they add extra fees to their budget, or would they rather stay at home? These are tricky questions to answer but interesting subjects to discuss.

Dual pricing is a common practice for instance in Thailand. There, local inhabitants may enter some monuments not paying anything, and since most countries are in favour of free education, it seems like a noble idea. The problem comes when international visitors are obliged to stand in a special (and usually much longer) line and then learn their price is ten times higher. This system is criticized on several web forums, and newspapers like The Post or The Nation express their worries about the impact it may have on tourism in Thailand. Despite all, the WTTC has observed a small growth of international tourist arrivals since the year 2014 and forecasts a continuous rise of both international arrivals and investments in the next ten years. Furthermore, Richard Forsyth in an Asian Correspondent article notes that the reasons for the sudden 6% drop of incoming foreigners in 2014 were probably not connected with the “ripping-tourists-off” policy but rather with the unpleasant coups and other affairs the country had had to deal with. It is also important to bear in mind that the prices for foreigners may seem high compare to the ones for locals, but the entrance fee to the Grand Palace Complex, including the famous Wat Phra Kaew temple and three other expositions, is only 500 THB (approximately 350 CZK), which is very affordable for most tourists. If it is the only way Thailand can raise money to protect its cultural wonders, I do not see any problem with this kind of overcharging.

The UNWTO Tourism Highlights (ed. 2015) classifies France as the number one destination. Its approach to external visitors is completely different from Thailand’s, though. Not only are the tourists treated as locals, but the entrance fees are relatively low for everybody, too. For example The Louvre offers all year round free entry for people under 26. Some other museums are free on Sundays, and students get highly significant discounts everywhere in Paris. However, being the most visited destination does not equal being the country which makes the biggest profit. UNWTO Tourism Highlights statistics show that the countries with the largest international tourism receipts are, in chronological order, the United States, Spain, China, France, and Thailand being on the ninth position. The explanations for this ranking are obviously very complex, but, for the purpose of simplification, it is possible to say that the United States’ leading position is due to tourists’ long stays; Spain is a favourite summer holiday destination, and its economy depends greatly on tourism, so it focuses on foreigners a lot; China is one of the most visited countries in the world with a very well-developed business travel  industry, and finally France, which offers affordable prices and a great deal of weekend vacations in Paris, has to maintain its fourth position even though it receives the largest number of visitors per year. This proves that being fair and gracious does not always pay off; on the other hand, it is not enough to want more money from foreigners either – the key to success is apparently to make tourists stay as long as possible.

Let us examine now the situation in the Czech Republic and raise the question of charging foreigners once again. The Czech Tourist Authority asserts that external visitors choose this country because it is safe and inexpensive. Looking at the GPI (Global Peace Index) from 2015, the Czech Republic is ranked the 10^th safest country in the world, and over the past five years, its position has not changed much. The index uses 23 indicators considering internal and external conflicts and crime rates, which makes it one of the most reliable sources available.  The Czech Republic is also listed amongst 20 cheapest places to travel on Rough Guides website, and many others agree that it is one of the most inexpensive destinations in Europe. Surely, the country has much more to offer, but obviously not many people are aware of it. Based on these facts, I would say it could do a lot of damage to the country if the prices went up because it is very unlikely someone would come to see what safe streets there are. First, you have to give tourists a reason to come; only then is it possible to overcharge them for it.

Considering all, it might not be such a bad idea to make foreigners pay more for some services, especially those not provided in the country’s official language. It is more expensive to issue brochures in a foreign language; multilingual guides have higher salaries – it is logical, and many countries (the Czech Republic included) do it. In a restaurant or a supermarket, it is possible to order and pay without any knowledge of the local language whatsoever, so there is no reason to charge anybody more than others. Letting locals enter monuments, museums and galleries for free, however, might prove to be problematic. As much as I understand the difference between local inhabitants’ and foreign tourists’ incomes in some countries, I would not put them in separate queues, nor would I demand unaffordable prices from the outlanders because it is nothing but discrimination. However, I am not totally against charging them more than locals if the price is still reasonable. Moreover, I would suggest declaring several days free of charge for them too, so that they would feel more welcome. Apparently, countries with unique architecture and culture can afford the dual price system, but the United States have proven that there are other ways to make a fortune. Maybe they would be worth following.