Swiss Cooperation in the Travel and Tourism Sector
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
JTRXXX10.1177/0047287519871105Journal of Travel ResearchThao et al. 871105research-article2019 Empirical Research Article Journal of Travel Research 1 –17 Swiss Cooperation in the Travel and © The Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions Tourism Sector: Long-term Relationships DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519871105 10.1177/0047287519871105 and Superior Performance journals.sagepub.com/home/jtr Vu Thi Thao1 , Widar von Arx1, and Jonas Frölicher2 Abstract Despite a growing body of research on the interface and relationship between transport and tourism, this research area remains undeveloped. Using Switzerland as a case study, the present study aims to investigate the level of integration between public transport and tourism companies, the enablers of their long-term cooperative relationship and outstanding performance, seen from the perspective of the public transport companies. A mixed methods approach is used to provide greater insights into how these companies cooperate with each other. Our findings suggest that public transport companies adopt different cooperative strategies with different types of partners. They are able to maintain long-term cooperative relationships due to strong cooperation in sales, a long tradition of cooperation, a high degree of involvement in national public organizations, and their central focus on the customer. Type of partner, sales, product design and pricing, and service provision have statistically significant effects on cooperative performance. Keywords leisure travel, tourism, public transport, interfirm cooperation, Switzerland Introduction review of literature, there is no research specifically on coop- eration between transport and tourism service companies as Transport and tourism are closely linked. Transport is one seen from the transport companies’ perspective. The present of the four fundamental elements of tourism, including study aims to fill in this gap in the literature. accommodation, attractions, and support services, and is an Similarly, leisure travel has received little attention in enabling condition for the existence and development of transport research (Ettema and Schwanen 2012; Schiefelbusch tourism. For example, the opening of the Vitznau–Rigi et al. 2007; Schlich et al. 2002). For some time, leisure travel Bahn, the first mountain railway in Europe, contributed sig- has been treated as a “residual” part of mobility (Heinze and nificantly to the boom in Swiss tourism and marked the Kill 1997). However, it has grown considerably in recent beginning of mass tourism (Gyr 2010). However, despite decades. For example, in Switzerland, leisure travel increased the important role of transport in tourism and a growing by 15% from 1984 to 2005 in terms of total person-kilome- body of research on the interface and relationship between ters traveled (Ohnmacht, Götz, and Schad 2009). In 2015, the two sectors, this interdisciplinary research area remains around 44% of daily distance (domestic) traveled were due undeveloped (Lohmann and Duval 2014; Page 2009; to leisure activities (BfS and ARE 2017). A similar phenom- Seetaram 2016). Furthermore, tourism research has tended enon is found elsewhere; for instance, in England during to focus on two particular themes: the role of transport in 2002–2017, leisure activities induced the longest average tourism and destination development, especially aviation distance traveled per person per year (Department for transport (Chung and Whang 2011; Khadaroo and Seetanah Transport 2018a) and became the most common travel pur- 2007; Rey, Myro, and Galera 2011), and mode of travel as pose in 2017 (accounting for 26%) (Department for Transport a tourism experience (Bae and Chick 2016; Halsall 2001; 2018b). This implies that leisure passengers are especially Su and Wall 2009). In tourism research, though there are a few studies on 1Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Institute of Tourism cooperation between transport and tourism companies, the ITW, Lucerne, Switzerland focus of these studies is on the tourism companies. In other 2KCW, Berlin, Germany words, they examine how tourism companies cooperate with Corresponding Author: partners in a supply chain in which transport companies are Vu Thi Thao, Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Institute of one of the partners (for examples, see Johann 2014; Seetaram Tourism ITW, P.O. Box 2940, Rösslimatte 48, Lucerne, 6002, Switzerland. 2016; Topolšek, Mrnjavac, and Kovačić 2014). Based on a Email: [email protected] 2 Journal of Travel Research 00(0) important to public transport (PT) companies, who have cooperation and competitive advantage. The resource-based faced increasingly strong competition from individual motor- view focuses on the impact of resources on organizational ized transport (Gross 2009). action and performance. Its central concern is that firms that Similarly, railway companies have to cope with fierce are able to accumulate rare, valuable, and nonsubstitutable competition from low-cost carriers (Dobruszkes 2011; resources and capabilities will gain a competitive advantage Behrens and Pels 2012; Yang and Zhang 2012). They also (Barney 1991; Dierickx and Cool 1989). Interfirm coopera- face increasing competition from long-distance bus compa- tion allows firms to acquire access to resources, thus helping nies (von Arx et al. 2018). In such a competitive business them to overcome resource constraints and to achieve their environment, building long-term relationships with service own objectives more fully (Combs and Ketchen 1999; Das partners in the travel and tourism sector is vital for PT compa- and Teng 2000). nies, as shown later in the empirical part of the present study. Conversely, the relational exchange theory is grounded in This article contributes to the current literature on the theories of transaction costs and agency. It argues that firms travel and tourism sector by investigating cooperation only gain competitive advantages if they both invest in a between PT and tourism companies in Switzerland. Our relation-specific asset that generates a relational rent above starting point in this research is inspired by James R. normal returns that neither partner individually can create Breiding’s work on the success of Swiss industries: “The (Duschek and Sydow 2002; Dyer and Singh 1998). Firms in icon products that Switzerland traditionally offers form a a long-term cooperative agreement that invest in relation- package. Hotels and tourism depend on transport systems; specific assets are less likely to pursue opportunistic behav- banking and insurance accompany trade. In this sense it is ior because of the mutual benefits they expect from the possible to talk about a particular quality of ‘Swissness’” agreement. They also establish governance mechanisms, for (Breiding 2013, x). It can be inferred from these findings that example, self-enforcing agreements such as trust, that reduce cooperation between transport and tourism companies con- transaction costs (Dyer 1997). tributes to the excellence of service quality. Our initial Another central difference between the resource-based inquiry also shows that transport and tourism companies view and the relational exchange theory is the unit of analy- have maintained long-term relationships and have superior sis. As the resource-based view focuses on resources and performance. Yet it is little known about how Swiss compa- rents created within the organization, its analytical level is nies are able to achieve this outcome. Hence, this study aims that of the firm. The relational exchange theory, conversely, to answer the following research questions: (1) How high is takes dyads or networks of firms as the unit of analysis the level of integration between transport and tourism com- because its argument is based on the relational rent generated panies? (2) What enablers are necessary for their long-term within the interfirm network. Therefore, the relational cooperative relationships and outstanding performance? (3) exchange theory is criticized for its neglect of the rents that Do long-term cooperative relationships bring about out- are created within the organization and is considered com- standing performances? To better understand the complexity plementary to the resource-based view (Dyer and Singh of interfirm cooperation, this study will apply a mixed meth- 1998; Lavie 2006). ods approach, namely, a survey of 30 PT companies and a Firms form alliances for a variety of motives, ranging range of qualitative methods. from cost savings to business expansion (Kale, Dyer, and The remainder of this article is organized as follows. In Singh 2002; Rosenfeld 1996). Evans (2001) lists the motives the second section, we provide a literature review on inter- for the formation of interfirm alliances as internal drivers firm cooperation and on the interconnectedness of transport (risk-sharing, economies of scale and scope, learning, access and tourism. The third section describes the context of the to resources and competencies, and shaping competition) study. The fourth section documents the methodological and external drivers (information and technology changes, approach adopted for gathering and analyzing data before economic restructuring, and global competition). turning to the analysis in the fifth section. The article ends To form a successful alliance, a firm should possess capa- with discussions of the enablers needed for long-term coop- bilities that help it effectively manage