tourist generating countries

International tourism: the most popular countries

Drastic declines due to COVID-19

The most popular travel countries.

Germany is the world travel champion

Booming tourism and slump in 2020.

A look at the costs

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My Portfolio
• Stock Market
• Biden Economy
• EV Deep Dive
• Stocks: Most Actives
• Stocks: Gainers
• Stocks: Losers
• Trending Tickers
• World Indices
• US Treasury Bonds
• Top Mutual Funds
• Highest Open Interest
• Highest Implied Volatility
• Stock Comparison
• Advanced Charts
• Currency Converter
• Investment Ideas
• Research Reports
• Basic Materials
• Communication Services
• Consumer Cyclical
• Consumer Defensive
• Financial Services
• Industrials
• Real Estate
• Mutual Funds
• Credit Cards
• Balance transfer cards
• Cash-back cards
• Rewards cards
• Travel cards
• Personal Loans
• Student Loans
• Car Insurance
• Morning Brief
• Market Domination
• Market Domination Overtime
• Opening Bid
• Stocks in Translation
• Lead This Way
• Good Buy or Goodbye?
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing
• Newsletters

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard

Yahoo Finance

World tourism rankings by country: top 20 countries.

In this piece, we will take a look at world tourism rankings by country. If you want to skip our analysis of the tourism industry and recent trends, head on over to World Tourism Rankings by Country: Top 5 Countries .

Tourism is one of the key determinants of global economic health. And it's an industry that has grown alongside advances in air transportation that have enabled people to travel to far flung destinations while traveling at speeds of hundreds of kilometers per hour.

This industry is also among the few that were left completely devastated in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Estimates from the United Nations' World Tourism Organization (WTO) show that international travel shrunk by an absolutely stunning 72% in 2020 as lockdowns and stay at home orders led to the closure of hospitality establishments and restrictions on the number of people that could be crammed inside an enclosed space such as an airplane. The impact of the pandemic was so severe that even by the end of 2022, the industry had recovered to 65% of previous levels despite more than a year of near normalcy.

Yet, tourism is one of the biggest industries in the world. For instance, according to research from Industry Arc, the global travel and tourism industry is expected to grow at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.1% between 2021 and 2026 to be worth an estimated $8.9 trillion by the end of the forecast period. Another report from Allied Markets Research estimates that the business travel market was worth $696 billion in 2020 and will grow at a CAGR of 13.2% to sit at $2 trillion by 2028.

At the same time, business and leisure travel are not the only constituents industries of tourism. Two additional markets are adventure tourism and luxury travel. Estimates suggest that the former was worth $282 billion in 2021 and after growing at a CAGR of 15.1% is estimated to be worth $1 trillion in 2030. As far as luxury tourism is concerned, it was quite lucrative, being worth $1.28 trillion in 2022, and should have a CAGR of 7.6% to be worth $2.32 trillion in 2030.

Building on this, the next logical question to ask is which countries are the most popular for tourists and which are the most visited overall as well as in continents such as Europe and Asia. Well, on this front, data from the World Tourism Organization once again answer all our questions. Its World Tourism Barometer report for December 2020 (the latest version that is publicly available) shows that France was the most visited tourist destination in the world and in Europe in 2019. Broadening our approach to see which are the top ten most visited tourist countries in the world, we find out that after France, the list is dominated by Spain, the U.S., China, Italy, Turkey, Mexico, Thailand, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Astute readers will note that this also makes China as the most visited tourist destination in Asia. In terms of numbers, 83.5 million people visited Spain in 2019 - the second most popular tourist destination in Europe while China attracted 65.7 million people.

At this point, you might be wondering which is the most popular and most visited city in the world. Well, and perhaps unsurprisingly, just as France is the world's and Europe's most popular tourist destination, the most visited city in the world is its capital, Paris. This bit of information comes courtesy of Euromonitor International, which adds that in addition to Paris, some other popular cities for tourists are Dubai, Amsterdam, Madrid, Rome, and London. Crucially, Euromonitor's stats are for 2022, while the WTO's data shared above is from 2019, and these facts when taken together indicate that trends in the tourism industry tend to stay similar over the years - a crucial conclusion as you'll find out below.

China's role as the most popular tourist destination in Asia and a leading global economy merits a deeper look at what's in store for the country's tourist fortunes. China kick started 2023 by removing nearly all restrictions on travel and tourism, and after initially faltering, the pent up tourism demand roared back to life. Data compiled by McKinsey shows that visits to one of its most popular cities Shanghai nearly doubled to ten million visitors from the pre coronavirus 2019 peak. At the same time, China also has some of the biggest outbound tourism travelers in the world, and McKinsey estimates that pend up demand from these visitors as well carries with it a strong chance of injecting fresh vigor into the global tourism industry.

Finally, it's relevant to conclude our analysis of the global tourism industry by taking a look at what's happening on the ground. On this front, the management of Expedia Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: EXPE ) outlined during its first quarter of 2023 earnings call conference :

And I’m pleased to have started the year with strong performance. We posted our highest ever quarter for lodging gross bookings and free cash flow and our best first quarter for revenue. Throughout the quarter, we saw strong consumer demand with acceleration in international and big city travel and more of Asia reopening. The reemergence of major international cities has meant increased hotel demand, offset in part by flattening demand in vacation rentals as travel demand mix to urban destinations over extended beach and mountain trips. Similarly, air has continued to mix towards international travel and away from COVID era concentration in domestic. By and large, prices have held up quite well after several years of inflation. We’ve seen lodging ADRs hold fairly steady across geos. Air ticket prices, however, continued to increase as strong demand continues to outstrip capacity. The only area where we have seen any meaningful decline in average daily rate is in the car rental space where larger inventories have allowed rental companies to drive more volume at the expense of price. Overall, we are pleased to see broad travel demand remain strong in what appears to be a more structural post pandemic environment of people prioritizing travel above most other categories of spend. This has held up despite inflation and recession worries and even, more recently, bank system concerns. While economists continue to debate potential recession outcomes and clearly many unknowns are still out there, consumers have so far shaken it off and continue to travel.

With these details in mind, let's take a look at the world tourism rankings according to countries.

Pixabay/Public domain

Our Methodology

To compile our global tourism ranking by country, we used data from the 2020 version of the United Nations' World Tourism Barometer report. While it lists out international tourism receipts for 2019, this is actually helpful since 2019 was the last economically stable year for the global tourism industry which is still recovering. For our world tourism rankings, we have used international tourism receipts which is the amount spent by international visitors in a country. On a side note, both countries and special territories are included, since the spending is quite substantial.

World Tourism Rankings by Country

20. portuguese republic.

International Tourism Receipts: $20.6 billion

The Portuguese Republic is a Southwestern European country. It has a $257 billion economy and is famous for its Gothic architecture and diverse cuisine.

19. Republic of Korea

International Tourism Receipts: $21.6 billion 

The Republic of Korea, commonly known as South Korea is a technologically developed Asian country. South Korea is quite popular with visitors from China - with thousands flocking to the country each year.

18. United Arab Emirates

International Tourism Receipts: $21.8 billion 

The United Arab Emirates is not a surprising industry in our list of world tourism rankings. After all, its economic hub Dubai is one of the most highly visited cities in Asia.

17. Republic of Austria

International Tourism Receipts: $22.9 billion 

The Republic of Austria is a Central European landlocked country. Some of its most popular tourist destinations include its capital Vienna, known for the Schönbrunn Palace.

16. United Mexican States

International Tourism Receipts: $24.6 billion 

The United Mexican States, or Mexico, is a North American country. It is well known for historical tourism, being the birthplace of the Mayan civilization as well as beautiful beaches.

International Tourism Receipts: $28.0 billion 

Canada is a prosperous North American nation. Canada is best known for its Niagra Falls, which has been a popular tourist destination for more than a hundred years.

14. Hong Kong SAR

International Tourism Receipts: $29.0 billion 

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China. It is known for its vibrant nightlife, historic temples, and of course, Disneyland.

13. Republic of Türkiye

International Tourism Receipts: $29.8 billion

The Republic of Türkiye is an Asian and European nation. Its Istanbul International Airport is one of the busiest airports in the world.

12. Republic of India

International Tourism Receipts: $30.7 billion

The Republic of India is one of the biggest countries in the world and is full of iconic tourist destinations such as the Taj Mahal, the Ganges River, and more.

11. People's Republic of China

International Tourism Receipts: $35.8 billion

The People's Republic of China is the most populous nation in the world. It has a centuries old culture lending it iconic destinations such as the Great Wall of China.

10. Macao SAR

International Tourism Receipts: $40.1 billion

Macao is another special territory of China. It is best known for its vibrant casino and gaming industry.

9. Federal Republic of Germany

International Tourism Receipts: $41.6 billion

The Federal Republic of Germany is Europe's largest economy It is known for its beer festivals and winter markets, that is quite a spectacle.

8. Commonwealth of Australia

International Tourism Receipts: $45.7 billion

The Commonwealth of Australia is a prosperous Oceanic country. It is known for having the world's largest coral reef system, the Great Barrier Reef.

International Tourism Receipts: $46.1 billion

Like China, Japan is also a historic country full of ancient temples and a historic culture.

6. Italian Republic

International Tourism Receipts: $49.6 billion

Another unsurprising entry on our list is Italy. Known for its Roman culture and art galleries, it is one of the best destinations for cultural tourism.

Click to continue reading and see World Tourism Rankings by Country: Top 5 Countries .

Suggested Articles:

Top 15 Luxury Travel Agencies in the World

20 Most Dangerous Countries for LGBTQ+ American Travelers

Top Supersonic Travel Companies in the World

Disclosure: None.  World Tourism Rankings by Country is originally published on Insider Monkey.

Countries With the Most International Tourists

As tourism rebounds from pandemic lows, the United Nations reports these countries welcomed the most visitors last year.

(Getty Images) |

Tourism is Rebounding

Two years after the COVID-19 pandemic essentially shut down international travel worldwide, the tourism industry is bouncing back as summer arrives in the northern hemisphere.

International tourism saw a close to 200% year-over-year increase in the first quarter of 2022, and although several related statistics are still well below 2019 levels, gradual recovery is expected to continue throughout the year, according to June analysis from the United Nations World Tourism Organization . Nearly 50% of experts surveyed by the organization said they expect international tourism to return to those pre-pandemic levels from three years ago in 2023, while 44% said it could be 2024 or later.

This is especially good news for countries whose economies are the most reliant on the tourism industry. Those countries include Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba and St. Lucia, according to 2021 gross domestic product data released in June by The World Travel & Tourism Council.

[ RELATED: These Countries Are the Best for Tourism ]

But the countries most supported economically by tourism aren't necessarily the ones that welcome the most visitors. The United Nations compiles several metrics related to inbound tourism by country , including international tourist arrivals, with the most recent data being from 2021. The statistics show that industry recovery still has a ways to go: The most-visited country in 2021 had about 32 million international arrivals. France, the top-ranked country in 2019 – before the pandemic hit – had 90 million.

Here are the countries that welcomed the most international tourist arrivals in 2021, according to the U.N. Included for each are other pieces of tourism-related data, such as GDP contribution percentages from the WTTC.

10. Hungary

2021 international tourist arrivals: 7.9 million 2019 international tourist arrivals: 16.9 million 2021 percentage contribution of tourism to GDP: 4.6%

2021 international tourist arrivals: 10.6 million 2019 international tourist arrivals: 17.4 million 2021 percentage contribution of tourism to GDP: 16.1%

2021 international tourist arrivals: 11.7 million 2019 international tourist arrivals: 35.2 million 2021 percentage contribution of tourism to GDP: 6.4%

2021 international tourist arrivals: 12.7 million 2019 international tourist arrivals: 22.7 million 2021 percentage contribution of tourism to GDP: 7.1%

2021 international tourist arrivals: 14.7 million 2019 international tourist arrivals: 31.3 million 2021 percentage contribution of tourism to GDP: 14.9%

5. United States

2021 international tourist arrivals: 22.1 million 2019 international tourist arrivals: 79.4 million 2021 percentage contribution of tourism to GDP: 5.5%

2021 international tourist arrivals: 26.9 million 2019 international tourist arrivals: 64.5 million 2021 percentage contribution of tourism to GDP: 9.1%

2021 international tourist arrivals: 29.9 million 2019 international tourist arrivals: 51.2 million 2021 percentage contribution of tourism to GDP: 7.3%

2021 international tourist arrivals: 31.2 million 2019 international tourist arrivals: 83.5 million 2021 percentage contribution of tourism to GDP: 8.5%

2021 international tourist arrivals: 31.9 million 2019 international tourist arrivals: 45 million 2021 percentage contribution of tourism to GDP: 13.1%

The Countries With the Most International Tourist Arrivals in 2021:

• United States

More From U.S. News

Assessing Politically Stable Countries

The 25 Best Countries

10 Countries With the Best Health Care Systems

Health News Bulletin

Stay informed on the latest news on health and COVID-19 from the editors at U.S. News & World Report.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

Switzerland is world's best country.

Julia Haines Sept. 6, 2023

Photos: Best Countries Around the World

Sept. 6, 2023

The 25 Best Countries in the World

Elliott Davis Jr. Sept. 6, 2023

Pro-Palestinian US High School Students Accuse School of Censoring Speech

Reuters April 24, 2024

Brazil's Government Submits Rules to Streamline Consumption Taxes

Best Countries

• Understanding Poverty
• Competitiveness

Tourism and Competitiveness

• Publications

The tourism sector provides opportunities for developing countries to create productive and inclusive jobs, grow innovative firms, finance the conservation of natural and cultural assets, and increase economic empowerment, especially for women, who comprise the majority of the tourism sector’s workforce. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, tourism was the world’s largest service sector—providing one in ten jobs worldwide,  almost seven percent of all international trade and  25 percent of the world’s service exports —a critical foreign exchange generator.  In 2019 the sector was valued at more than US$9 trillion and accounted for 10.4 percent of global GDP.

Tourism offers opportunities for economic diversification and market-creation. When effectively managed, its deep local value chains can expand demand for existing and new products and services that directly and positively impact the poor and rural/isolated communities. The sector can also be a force for biodiversity conservation, heritage protection, and climate-friendly livelihoods, making up a key pillar of the blue/green economy. This potential is also associated with social and environmental risks, which need to be managed and mitigated to maximize the sector’s net-positive benefits.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating for tourism service providers, with a loss of 20 percent of all tourism jobs (62 million), and US$1.3 trillion in export revenue, leading to a reduction of 50 percent of its  contribution to GDP  in 2020 alone. The collapse of demand has severely impacted the livelihoods of tourism-dependent communities, small businesses and women-run enterprises. It has also reduced government tax revenues and constrained the availability of resources for destination management and site conservation.

Naturalist local guide with group of tourist in Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve Ecuador. Photo: Ammit Jack/Shutterstock

Tourism and Competitiveness Strategic Pillars

Our solutions are integrated across the following areas:

• Competitive and Productive Tourism Markets. We work with government and private sector stakeholders to foster competitive tourism markets that create productive jobs, improve visitor expenditure and impact, and are supportive of high-growth, innovative firms. To do so we offer guidance on firm and destination level recovery, policy and regulatory reforms, demand diversification, investment promotion and market access. 
• Blue, Green and Resilient Tourism Economies. We support economic diversification to sustain natural capital and tourism assets, prepare for external and climate-related shocks, and be sustainably managed through strong policy, coordination, and governance improvements. To do so we offer support to align the tourism enabling and policy environment towards sustainability, while improving tourism destination and site planning, development, and management. We work with governments to enhance the sector’s resilience and to foster the development of innovative sustainable financing instruments.
• Inclusive Value Chains. We work with client governments and intermediaries to support Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs), and strengthen value chains that provide equitable livelihoods for communities, women, youth, minorities, and local businesses. 

The successful design and implementation of reforms in the tourism space requires the combined effort of diverse line ministries and agencies, and an understanding of the impact of digital technologies in the industry. Accordingly, our teams support cross-cutting issues of tourism governance and coordination, digital innovation and the use and application of data throughout the three focus areas of work.

Tourism and Competitiveness Theory of Change 

Examples of our projects:

• In Indonesia , a US$955m loan is supporting the Government’s Integrated Infrastructure Development for National Tourism Strategic Areas Project. This project is designed to improve the quality of, and access to, tourism-relevant basic infrastructure and services, strengthen local economy linkages to tourism, and attract private investment in selected tourism destinations. In its initial phases, the project has supported detailed market and demand analyses needed to justify significant public investment, mobilized integrated tourism destination masterplans for each new destination and established essential coordination mechanisms at the national level and at all seventeen of the Project’s participating districts and cities.
• In Madagascar , a series of projects totaling US$450m in lending and IFC Technical Assistance have contributed to the sustainable growth of the tourism sector by enhancing access to enabling infrastructure and services in target regions. Activities under the project focused on providing support to SMEs, capacity building to institutions, and promoting investment and enabling environment reforms. They resulted in the creation of more than 10,000 jobs and the registration of more than 30,000 businesses. As a result of COVID-19, the project provided emergency support both to government institutions (i.e., Ministry of Tourism) and other organizations such as the National Tourism Promotion Board to plan, strategize and implement initiatives to address effects of the pandemic and support the sector’s gradual relaunch, as well as to directly support tourism companies and workers groups most affected by the crisis. 
• In Sierra Leone , an Economic Diversification Project has a strong focus on sustainable tourism development.  The project is contributing significantly to the COVID-19 recovery, with its focus on the creation of six new tourism destinations, attracting new private investment, and building the capacity of government ministries to successfully manage and market their tourism assets.  This project aims to contribute to the development of more circular economy tourism business models, and support the growth of women- run tourism businesses.  
• Through the Rebuilding Tourism Competitiveness: Tourism Response, Recovery and Resilience to the COVID-19 Crisis initiative and the Tourism for Development Learning Series , we held webinars, published insights and guidance notes as well as formed new partnerships with Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, United Nations Environment Program, United Nations World Tourism Organization, and World Travel and Tourism Council to exchange knowledge on managing tourism throughout the pandemic, planning for recovery and building back better. The initiative’s key Policy Note has been downloaded more than 20,000 times and has been used to inform recovery initiatives in over 30 countries across 6 regions.
• The Global Aviation Dashboard  is a platform that visualizes real-time changes in global flight movements, allowing users to generate 2D & 3D visualizations, charts, graphs, and tables; and ranking animations for: flight volume, seat volume, and available seat kilometers.  Data is available for domestic, intra-regional, and inter-regional routes across all regions, countries, airports, and airlines on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis from January 2020 until today. The dashboard has been used to track the status and recovery of global travel and inform policy and operational actions.

Traditional Samburu women in Kenya. Photo: hecke61/Shutterstock.

Featured Data

We-Fi WeTour Women in Tourism Enterprise Surveys (2019)

• Sierra Leone  |  Ghana

Featured Reports 

• Destination Management Handbook: A Guide to the Planning and Implementation of Destination Management  (2023)
• Blue Tourism in Islands and Small Tourism-Dependent Coastal States : Tools and Recovery Strategies (2022)
• Resilient Tourism: Competitiveness in the Face of Disasters  (2020)
• Tourism and the Sharing Economy: Policy and Potential of Sustainable Peer-to-Peer Accommodation  (2018)
• Supporting Sustainable Livelihoods through Wildlife Tourism  (2018)
• The Voice of Travelers: Leveraging User-Generated Content for Tourism Development  (2018)
• Women and Tourism: Designing for Inclusion  (2017)
• Twenty Reasons Sustainable Tourism Counts for Development  (2017)
• An introduction to tourism concessioning:14 characteristics of successful programs.  The World Bank, 2016)
• Getting financed: 9 tips for community joint ventures in tourism . World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and World Bank, (2015)
• Global investment promotion best practices: Winning tourism investment” Investment Climate  (2013)

Country-Specific

• COVID-19 and Tourism in South Asia: Opportunities for Sustainable Regional Outcomes  (2020)
• Demand Analysis for Tourism in African Local Communities  (2018)
• Tourism in Africa: Harnessing Tourism for Growth and Improved Livelihoods . Africa Development Forum (2014)

COVID-19 Response

• Expecting the Unexpected : Tools and Policy Considerations to Support the Recovery and Resilience of the Tourism Sector (2022)
• Rebuilding Tourism Competitiveness. Tourism response, recovery and resilience to the COVID-19 crisis  (2020)
• COVID-19 and Tourism in South Asia Opportunities for Sustainable Regional Outcomes  (2020)  
• WBG support for tourism clients and destinations during the COVID-19 crisis  (2020)
• Tourism for Development: Tourism Diagnostic Toolkit  (2019)
• Tourism Theory of Change  (2018)

Country   -Specific

• COVID Impact Mitigation Survey Results  (South Africa) (2020)
• COVID Preparedness for Reopening Survey Results  (South Africa) (2020)
• COVID Study  (Fiji) (2020) with   IFC

Featured Blogs

• Fiona Stewart, Samantha Power & Shaun Mann ,  Harnessing the power of capital markets to conserve and restore global biodiversity through “Natural Asset Companies”   | October 12 th  2021
• Mari Elka Pangestu ,  Tourism in the post-COVID world: Three steps to build better forward  | April 30 th  2021
• Hartwig Schafer ,  Regional collaboration can help South Asian nations rebuild and strengthen tourism industry  | July 23 rd  2020
• Caroline Freund ,  We can’t travel, but we can take measures to preserve jobs in the tourism industry  | March 20 th  2020

Featured Webinars

• Destination Management for Resilient Growth . This webinar looks at emerging destinations at the local level to examine the opportunities, examples, and best tools available. Destination Management Handbook
• Launch of the Future of Pacific Tourism. This webinar goes through the results of the new Future of Pacific Tourism report. It was launched by FCI Regional and Global Managers with Discussants from the Asian Development Bank and Intrepid Group.
• Circular Economy and Tourism . This webinar discusses how new and circular business models are needed to change the way tourism operates and enable businesses and destinations to be sustainable.
• Closing the Gap: Gender in Projects and Analytics .  The purpose of this webinar is to raise awareness on integrating gender considerations into projects and provide guidelines for future project design in various sectoral areas.
• WTO Tourism Resilience: Building forward Better. High-level panelists from Sri Lanka, Costa Rica, Jordan and Kenya discuss how donors, governments and the private sector can work together most effectively to rebuild the tourism industry and improve its resilience for the future.
• Tourism Watch
• [email protected]

Launch of Blue Tourism Resource Portal

• Student Outreach
• Research Support
• Executive Education
• News & Announcements
• Jobs & Opportunities
• Annual Reports
• Faculty Working Papers
• Building State Capability
• Colombia Education Initiative
• Evidence for Policy Design
• Reimagining the Economy
• Social Protection Initiative
• Past Programs
• Speaker Series
• Global Empowerment Meeting (GEM)
• NEUDC 2023 Conference

Tourist Spending Insights Provide Unprecedented View of Global Tourism

In this section.

Authors: Frank Neffke, Sid Ravinutala, and Bruno Zuccolo

Tourism is an important sector in the global economy. Today, 10.4% of the world’s GDP and 7% of the world’s total exports come from tourism. The industry is worth over US$ 1.1 trillion. The money earned from expenditures by foreigners are crucial drivers of economic development and can be an important source of foreign exchange. Moreover, growing tourism can help create employment opportunities for marginalized populations.

However, due to a lack of data, we have only a limited understanding of tourism’s role in the global economy: Which countries do the visitors who spend the most come from? What are the most visited places? What types of businesses do tourists spend their money on? The Center for International Development (CID) is collaborating with the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth to better understand these issues and explore tourism’s impact on economies across the world. Through the collaboration, CID researchers have been able to use anonymized and aggregated transaction data 1 to study foreign tourist spending 2 patterns in 40 countries from 2011 to 2016, including most of Europe, the United States, and select countries in South America and Oceania. These destinations account for over 60% of all tourism in the world.

Across 40 countries in our data

Tourism accounts for more than 8% of this expanded definition of exports, comparable to the trade in oil and energy, and agricultural products.

How important is tourism as an export category? In a globalized world, the products we consume are increasingly produced elsewhere and firms often source their machinery and raw materials from across the globe. This all happens seamlessly: most consumers are often unaware of where merchandise was produced. However, at the level of a national economy, to pay for imports, a country has to amass foreign exchange: it has to sell something in return to customers outside its borders. Countries pay for their imports by exporting goods, services and capital—that is, by trading with other countries. When we envision this trade, we picture shiploads of toys, cars and raw materials crisscrossing the globe; but this is only one version of trade. Foreigners can also buy goods and services by coming to our country, an activity also known as tourism. In this sense, tourism is a substantial component of global trade.

Note that in this story, it does not matter much what is sold to foreign visitors, as long as they pay with money earned elsewhere. In this wider definition, tourism income is not limited to restaurant and hotel bills, but includes all types of expenditures ranging from transportation to medical care to clothing and educational services. However, unlike trade in goods, which is recorded by customs offices at the border, national statistics often only provide a poor account of tourism income. With exports of goods, we know exactly how much and which products are traded with whom, yet we have a vague understanding of how a country earns foreign exchange from tourists.

In our research, we added up a country’s tourism income with its income from traditional exports of goods. For the total tourism income for a country, we rely on national aggregates reported by the IMF and leverage aggregated and anonymized transaction data provided by Mastercard to divide the total expenditures into different categories, based on what these data indicate about the types of merchants where tourists spend their money.

Across the 40 countries, our data show that tourism tourism accounts for over 8 percent of this expanded definition of exports, making it comparable to trade in oil and energy, and just slightly smaller than trade in agricultural products. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of exports by category, with tourism expenditures depicted in red.

Figure 1 – Total export of goods and tourism by sector, for the 40 countries analyzed

Sources: The Atlas of Economic Complexity , IMF, and Mastercard

Total expenditures by tourists (the absolute size of the red rectangle) are taken from the IMF. The relative breakdown by expenditure type within tourism is gleaned from leveraging insights based on Mastercard’s aggregated and anonymized transaction data. Choose a country from the drop-down menu to explore the importance of tourism as an export for individual countries by year. Click on any of the industries to see the breakdown of exports within that industry, including types of tourism.

There is substantial variation across countries. For some countries, tourism is almost as important a source of foreign exchange as all exported goods combined: in Cyprus the share of tourism in our expanded exports definition is 52 percent, in Croatia it is 42 percent, in Iceland 39 percent, in Greece 36 percent and in Luxembourg 22 percent. While Croatia and Greece are well-known tourist destinations, the reliance of Luxembourg on tourism revenues may be more surprising. Here, it is important to remember that the definition of tourism, the one relevant from a foreign exchange perspective, encompasses all purchases of goods and services made by foreign citizens in a particular country. This includes income of typical tourist industries, such as hospitality and entertainment, but also of education, health care, and shops. Much of the tourism expenditures in Luxembourg are related to visitors from neighboring countries shopping for groceries or filling up their tanks at lower-taxed gas stations.

Is the Mastercard spend index a reliable reflection of tourism expenditures? Many governments provide high-level information on tourism income in their balance of payment statistics. We can compare yearly tourism income reported by the IMF to the index of expenditures based on Mastercard’s aggregated and anonymized transaction data for each of the 40 countries over a six-year period. As shown in the scatterplot of Figure 2, the two measures line up very well on a log scale. The correlation of 0.932 shows that the Mastercard spend index provides highly reliable estimates of the distribution of tourism across countries and years.

Figure 2 – Correlation of revenues by country and year

Source: International Monetary Fund (2018) and indexed tourism spend based on Mastercard’s aggregated and anonymized transaction data

To explore the growth of tourism, Figure 3 plots how the index of tourism expenditures changes in each of the destination countries over time, using 2011 as the base year. The dotted line represents the average of the 40 countries.

Figure 3: Yearly indexed spend trends by country, 2011-2016

Whereas average growth in tourism in our sample of countries was rather flat, there are some fast-growing destinations, with Iceland (19% annualized growth rate), Colombia (9.3%), Malta (8.3%), Lithuania (7.1%) and Romania (6.9%) leading the pack. Iceland’s growth has far outpaced any of its peers’, riding a strong and long-lasting tourism boom that helped it recover more quickly from the 2008 financial crisis. It’s a remarkable success for a small country that has invested heavily in marketing itself as a hub between Europe and North America through its flagship airline Icelandair .

Where is this growth coming from? Figure 4 shows the origins of the increase in tourist expenditures in the United States. Asian countries form a fast-growing market for the United States, but we also see some growth from eastern European countries, Australia and New Zealand. One of the most striking features of the map in Figure 4, however, is the rise of tourism from China, which has grown at a whopping 22 percent a year since 2011. On the other end of the spectrum, we see an astounding 43 percent a year contraction in Venezuelan tourism expenditures, a reflection of the precipitous collapse of the Venezuelan economy.

Figure 4 – Annual growth of indexed spend in the USA by origin countries, 2011-2016

Payment card data insights: tourism under the microscope For the analyses so far (except Figure 4), we could have just relied on the statistics the IMF provides. However, Mastercard’s aggregated and anonymized transaction data also allows us to zoom in on tourism, by breaking down expenditures in different ways. First of all, we can look at the types of merchants where tourists make purchases. Mastercard classified all merchants accepting payment cards into 27 categories. By far the largest is “Finance and Insurance,” accounting for about a quarter of total spending. This category includes all the money withdrawn from ATMs by foreign cardholders, but it does not indicate the merchants where the tourists are spending the cash they withdraw. Therefore, we focus on the expenditures in the remaining merchant types, which are depicted in Figure 5.

Figure 5 – Share of total indexed spend by merchant type in all countries

Figure 5 immediately highlights one of the main benefits offered by Mastercard’s aggregated and anonymized transaction data. What we would typically think of as the “tourism sector”—the hotels, restaurants, and other hospitality services in a country (here classified as “Accommodations and Food Services”)—make up just 30% of all tourist expenditures. Focusing on this one sector would therefore miss most of the economic impact of tourism (it also risks erroneously classifying expenditures by locals in hotels and restaurants as “tourism.” Instead, our analysis reveals that foreigners also spend significant amounts on “Apparel and Accessories,” “Grocery and Food Stores,” and more.

Apart from knowing what categories tourists spend their money on, we can also see where they spend it. This allows us to compare cities in terms of what tourists are looking for when they visit a place. As an example, take Figures 6 and 7, which compare the expenditure patterns of tourists in Naples and Milan:

Figure 6 – Spend by merchant type in Naples (2016)

Figure 7 – Spend by merchant type in Milan (2016)

Both cities attract many foreign visitors. However, they differ drastically in the services sought by these tourists. Naples earns most of its money through its many excellent restaurants and hotels, whereas tourists spend at about twice the rate in the clothing stores of Milan. Milan and Naples’ reputations as the fashion and culinary centers of Italy are thus clearly reflected in their visitors’ spending patterns.

Another way to compare cities is by origin of tourists. The figures below exemplify this by comparing Los Angeles to New York City:

Figure 8 – Spend by origin in Los Angeles (2016)

Figure 9 – Spend by origin in New York (2016)

Located on opposite coasts, NYC and LA have very different tourist profiles. Tourism in NYC is dominated by European visitors, while LA’s relative proximity to other Pacific nations makes it an attractive destination for tourists from Asia and Oceania. For instance, the share of tourism expenditures being made by tourists from China in LA is almost three times as large as in NYC.

These graphs show how Mastercard’s aggregated and anonymized transaction data allow us to break down tourism in various, meaningful ways. This gives us a unique lens on the nature of tourism as an export category and provides us with an invaluable tool for understanding the role of tourism in inclusive growth. It helps address questions such as: How can we classify tourism into different types? What kind of services do different types of tourists require? Can we predict where new tourist destinations will arise and who will visit them? And, most importantly, can tourism accelerate economic development and be a source of inclusive growth? – Stay tuned!

1 The Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth is committed to advancing sustainable and equitable economic growth and financial inclusion around the world, collaborating with a diverse community of academic and research institutions by providing access to aggregated and anonymized transaction data. In its collaboration with CID, Mastercard provided controlled access to data that was aggregated, anonymized, and subject to additional privacy and data protection safeguards. In addition to these safeguards, access to the data was provided for academic research purposes only and subject to Harvard University's stringent confidentiality requirements.

2 Data on expenditures was aggregated to a combination of a country of origin, a location within a country of destination, and a merchant type for a given time window. Absolute expenditure values were replaced by an index that makes relative comparisons across the data set. Additionally, expenditures were scaled to reflect spend in the foreign expenditures market as a whole, not just the share serviced by Mastercard.

Media inquiries

Contact: Chuck McKenney Email: [email protected] Phone: (617) 495-8496 Date: Nov. 1, 2018

Interactive visualization requires JavaScript

Related research and data

• Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
• Air passengers
• Air passengers per fatality
• Average length of stay of international visitors
• Employment in food and beverage serving activities per 1,000 people
• Employment in tourism-related industries per 1,000 people
• Fatal airliner accidents and hijacking incidents
• Fatal airliner accidents per million commercial flights
• Fatalities from airliner accidents and hijackings
• Foreign guests in hotels and similar establishments
• Global aviation fatalities per million passengers
• International one-day trips
• International one-day trips per 1,000 people
• International tourist departures
• International tourist departures per 1,000 people
• International tourist departures per 1,000 people vs. GDP per capita
• International tourist expenditure abroad
• International tourist expenditure within the country they visit
• International tourist trips
• International tourist trips by destination region
• International tourist trips by region of origin
• International tourist trips per 1,000 people
• International trips for business and professional reasons
• International trips for personal reasons
• International trips for personal vs. business and professional reasons
• Local guests in hotels and similar establishments
• Local vs. foreign guests in hotels and similar establishments
• Monitoring of sustainable tourism
• Monthly CO₂ emissions from commercial passenger flights
• Monthly CO₂ emissions from domestic and international commercial passenger flights
• Per capita CO₂ emissions from domestic commercial passenger flights
• Per capita CO₂ emissions from commercial aviation, tourism-adjusted
• Per capita CO₂ emissions from international commercial passenger flights, tourism-adjusted Clarke & UNWTO
• Per capita CO₂ emissions from international passenger flights, tourism-adjusted Graver & World Bank
• Ratio of business trips to trips for personal reasons
• Ratio of inbound to outbound tourist trips
• Ratio of same-day trips to tourist trips
• Share of global services exports
• Trips by domestic tourists per 1,000 people

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

Map Options

Most Visited Countries 2024

European countries, often rich in history, culture, beautiful beaches, and ocean views, attract the highest number of tourists.

France, leading in tourism for over 30 years, offers attractions like the Eiffel Tower and Disneyland Paris, drawing 38 million tourists to Paris alone in 2019.

Global travel and tourism, an $8.9 trillion industry in 2019, suffered a loss of $4.5 trillion and 62 million jobs in 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Global travel and tourism was an $8.9 trillion (US$) business in 2019 . Moreover, though the COVID-19 pandemic has reduced that number to roughly a quarter of its previous value, all signs point to tourism continuing to grow, expand, and evolve. Every country on Earth has something to offer international visitors, from the pyramids in Egypt to the rainforests of Brazil or the sidewalk cafes of Paris —but which countries attract the most visitors of all? Most of the countries with the highest tourism rates are located in Europe , whose rich history, architecture, and cultural influence make it an appealing destination for many travelers. Countries positioned on or near a body of water are also very popular, particularly those that offer a relaxed, low-key atmosphere mixed with beautiful beaches and ocean views.

Top 10 Countries Most Popular with Tourists (by number of 2019 visitor arrivals)

The most popular tourist destination in the world for more than 30 years, France offers a myriad of attractions: the Eiffel tower, countless world-class restaurants, the Musée du Louvre, the Palace of Versailles, the Notre-Dame cathedral, the beaches of the Côte d'Azur, and of course, Disneyland Paris. Moreover, the lushly beautiful countryside is full of storybook villages, mountains, vineyards, and the occasional castle. One can even view prehistoric cave paintings in Lascaux. Paris, France's capital, is the most visited city in Europe, receiving 38 million tourists in 2019.

Spain is another tourist destination overflowing with interesting attractions. Antoni Gaudi's Sagrada Familia cathedral and other works in Barcelona , the Guggenheim museum, the Alhambra and Generalife Gardens, Europe's largest aquarium (the lily-shaped L'Oceanogràfic), the beaches of Gran Canaria, and La Rambla in Barcelona. Spain is also home to El Teide, an ancient—but not entirely dormant—volcano, which visitors can hike around at the Parque Nacional del Teide on the Spanish island Tenerife.

England's capital city, London , attracts visitors with a wide range of sights including Big Ben, Westminster Abbey, the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace, and the British Museum, which includes the largest collection of Egyptian artifacts outside of Cairo . Beyond London, England offers the mysterious Stonehenge, the Beatles' birthplace in Liverpool , the quaint beauty of the Cotswolds, the sci-fi botanical gardens of the Eden Project, and more. Speaking of more, the UK also includes three additional subdivisions. First is Scotland, with the charming city of Edinburgh , moody Loch Ness and Inverness , the scenic highlands, and the historic St. Andrews golf course. Next comes charming Wales and its castles, scenery, and capital city of Cardiff . Finally, Northern Ireland boasts attractions including Belfast 's bubbling nightlife, the glens and coastline of Antrim, and one of Europe's most compelling natural wonders: the Giant's Causeway.

The Mediterranean nation Turkey balances captivating man-made attractions such as Hagia Sophia mosque and Topkapı Palace with archaeological wonders such as the Biblical city of Ephesus, the fairy city of Cappadocia, and the desolate fallen splendor of Mount Nemrut. It also has more than its share of natural wonders, including the famous beaches at Ölüdeniz and Patara, the mineral pools at Pamukkale, and the Mediterranean coastline itself.

The South Asian country of Thailand is also known as the "Land of Smiles", and offers both modern comforts and wild adventure. Thailand's capital, Bangkok , receives over 20 million visitors every year. Popular attractions include the Grand Palace in Bangkok; beaches including Railay, Long, and Monkey beach; the ancient city Ayutthaya and ornate Buddhist wat Coi Suthep, and national parks including Khao Yai (where wild elephants roam) and the otherworldly Khao Sok.

The impact of COVID-19 on travel and tourism

The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020-21 had a devastating effect on the travel and tourism industry. According to a report released by the World Travel & Tourism Council , the pandemic cost the industry an estimated US$ 4.5 trillion in 2020, which resulted in the loss of 62 million tourism-dependent jobs. Data from the United Nations World Tourism Organization backs this up. Consider the following table:

International tourist arrivals (in thousands of visitors):

Compared to 2019, tourism dropped by approximately 74% in 2020, with a total of a billion fewer travelers over the course of the year--making 2020 the worst year on record for tourism. The UNTWO's own estimates registered a loss of US$ 1.3 trillion in lost revenues and 100-120 million jobs either lost or at risk.

The impact has been particularly damaging in countries that rely heavily upon tourism as part of their GDP. Lost tourism in Macau , one of China 's special administrative regions, led to a 79.3% drop in year-on-year gambling revenues , which caused overall GDP for 2020 to fall 43.1% compared to the previous year.

While tourism has picked up slightly in 2021, they still fall far short of the pre-pandemic numbers. Late 2020 projections were hopeful that the industry would be back on track by late 2021, but the ongoing nature of the pandemic has thwarted that optimism. As of late 2021, most estimates do not expect the industry to rebound to 2019 (pre-COVID) levels until sometime in 2023 at the earliest.

• Visitor totals are displayed in 1000s. For example, South Africa 's displayed total of 3886.6 equals 3,886,600 visitors.

Download Table Data

Enter your email below, and you'll receive this table's data in your inbox momentarily.

What are the top 5 most visited countries?

Frequently asked questions.

• UNWTO Tourism Data Dashboard - United Nations World Tourism Organization
• World Tourism Barometer - United Nations World Tourism Organization
• Trending in Travel - World Travel & Tourism Council
• Economic Impact Reports - World Travel & Tourism Council

• Subscriber Services
• For Authors
• Publications
• Archaeology
• Art & Architecture
• Bilingual dictionaries
• Classical studies
• Encyclopedias
• English Dictionaries and Thesauri
• Language reference
• Linguistics
• Media studies
• Medicine and health
• Names studies
• Performing arts
• Science and technology
• Social sciences
• Society and culture
• Overview Pages
• Subject Reference
• English Dictionaries
• Bilingual Dictionaries

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search

Allan Beaver

• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Related Content

In this work.

• Publishing Information
• General Links for this Work
• Introduction
• Recommended Tourism Syllabus Content for Higher Education Courses
• EC Computer Reservation System Rules
• Acknowledgements

tourism-generating country  

Any country whose inhabitants have a substantial propensity to travel abroad. Departure statistics of residents of the main generating countries ...

Access to the complete content on Oxford Reference requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs , and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us .

• Oxford University Press

PRINTED FROM OXFORD REFERENCE (www.oxfordreference.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single entry from a reference work in OR for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice ).

date: 24 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|91.193.111.216]
• 91.193.111.216

Character limit 500 /500

Regions of the World, Ranked by Tourism Growth

Fastest-growing regions.

Thanks to Instagram and Pinterest, it’s easier than ever to experience serious wanderlust on a daily basis. Standup paddleboard with manatees? Check. Get lost in the Blue City in Morocco? Yes, please. Snorkel in the Great Blue Hole? Sign me up.

With so many destinations at their fingertips, travelers have to be really choosy when plotting their itineraries. Some regions of the world are trendy right now, which means they’re seeing more travelers than in years past. Others are experiencing natural disasters, economic crises and wars, which has made them less popular among travelers.

The World Tourism Organization (WTO), the arm of the United Nations that promotes and studies tourism around the world, has just released its updated World Tourism Barometer , which offers a window into short-term travel trends, ranging from how much money tourists are spending to which countries are welcoming the most visitors.

Here’s how the 15 regions of the world stacked up to each other when it came to international tourist arrivals in 2018. The top (and bottom) destinations on the list may surprise you.

15. Caribbean

Despite its crystal-clear, cerulean blue waters and picture-perfect beaches, the Caribbean struggled a bit in 2018, welcoming fewer tourists to its sunny shores than the year before. 

The WTO suspects that some Caribbean islands are still trying to rebound from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria. Puerto Rico was hit particularly hard by Hurricane Maria, suffering at least $100 billion worth of damage, which likely contributed heavily to its 40 percent decrease in tourist arrivals. St. Maarten, which was struck by Hurricane Irma, fared even worse, experiencing a steep 69.3 percent drop in traffic.

Still, other parts of the Caribbean experienced “strong growth” in 2018, according to the WTO — the Dominican Republic and Jamaica were popular destinations for Americans and Europeans, for example, growing 6.2 percent and 5.3 percent, respectively.

But the leader of the pack was the Cayman Islands, which is surging in popularity thanks to an influx of new hotels (including luxe Grand Hyatt and Mandarin Oriental properties) and just-launched flights from Southwest and JetBlue.

14. Central America

Mother Nature also likely contributed to declining tourism in Central America, with places like Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Honduras suffering extensive damage from Tropical Storm Nate in October 2017. Overall, the region saw a slight drop in tourist arrivals in 2018.

Even so, travelers weren’t avoiding Central America entirely. They flocked to happening destinations like El Salvador, where tourist arrivals were up 13.3 percent.

The place trending up most? Belize, known for its gorgeous sandy beaches, ancient Mayan ruins, and top-notch snorkeling and scuba-diving sites. The locale is famously home to the Great Blue Hole, a UNESCO World Heritage Site filled with beautiful rock formations that look like icicles.

13. Northern Europe

Though places like Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Ireland made it onto travelers’ itineraries in 2018, other countries in Northern Europe weren’t as appealing. Faring worst was the UK, which saw a 5 percent decrease in traffic in part because of the fluctuation of the pound.

Norway, too, struggled, dipping 2.5 percent. A victim of its own popularity, the country had surged so much in recent years that overcrowding became a problem, pushing travelers to look elsewhere last year. 

Despite chatter that people may be losing interest in Iceland, it actually saw a healthy 8.2 percent increase in tourist arrivals in 2018. The country began an intense marketing campaign to attract tourists after the 2010 eruption of the volcano Eyjafjallajökul — and it seems to have paid off. Cheap flights from WOW air and other Icelandic airlines, plus ruggedly beautiful scenery, have continued to lure travelers from all over the world.

12. Oceania

Oceania can thank a strong Australian dollar for its 3 percent growth in tourist arrivals in 2018, says the WTO. Australia saw a 5.2 percent increase in visitors, while New Zealand saw a 3.1 percent bump.

Smaller regions like Tuvalu, Tonga, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu saw huge jumps in tourist traffic. Tuvalu, a remote and nearly undeveloped chain of nine small islands north of Fiji, is incredibly gorgeous, but somewhat difficult to get to — there are just two arriving flights each week. Once travelers arrive, however, they’re treated to first-rate scuba diving and snorkeling along the coral reefs, plus fishing, boating and historical attractions (including a few plane wrecks and other remnants left over from World War II).

11. South America

South America's uptick in tourism was spurred on by massive new interest in places like Ecuador, Colombia, Peru and Guyana. Those countries are popular among people who live in nearby areas and Asia, according to the WTO.

Argentina, the most popular country in South America, saw a modest 3.5 percent uptick in traffic, though WTO experts expect that growth to accelerate in coming months. The weak Argentinian peso makes traveling to the country more affordable — and more appealing — for international tourists. From the high-energy nightlife in Buenos Aires to the awe-inspiring waterfalls inside Iguazu National Park (there are 275 in total!), Argentina has a little something for everyone to enjoy. 

Ditto the fast-growing country of Ecuador, where sandy shores meet Amazonian rainforest and the staggering Andes mountains — not to mention the increasingly popular, wildlife-rich Galapagos Islands. No wonder more and more tourists are flocking there in droves.

10. North America

The United States and Mexico led the way for overall growth in North America, which saw a modest but healthy increase in tourism traffic in 2018 (though the WTO notes this is likely to change as more data comes in). In addition to the United States' 6.9 percent spike, trips to Mexico increased 6 percent.

The countries that sent the most visitors to the United States in 2018 include the United Kingdom, China, Japan, Germany and India (all behind neighboring Mexico and Canada, of course), according to the National Travel and Tourism Office .

And where do people love to go once they arrive? New York City, Maui and Las Vegas are their top three favorite destinations, according to TripAdvisor’s 2018 Travelers’ Choice Awards .

9. South Asia

Visits to Nepal and Sri Lanka were up in 2018, which helped contribute to an overall boost in tourist arrivals in the South Asia region. India and the Maldives also saw more tourists year over year.

Travelers were inspired to visit Nepal by several promotional campaigns, which primarily reached tourists in India, China and Europe, according to the WTO.

The country also boasts a number of cultural and religious heritage sites, like the Changu Narayan Temple and Bhaktapur Durbar Square, as well as ample opportunity for outdoor recreation in the Himalayas.

8. Western Europe

It was a good year for Belgium, France and Liechtenstein, which all saw strong growth for international tourist arrivals. All told, nearly every country in Western Europe saw an increase in tourism traffic in 2018, leading to a 5.6 percent increase for the region overall. (The one notable exception, Luxembourg, had an exceptional year in 2017, and was probably just cooling off from that.) The WTO credits good weather during the summer months for the region’s bump, which led to lots of local travel in the area.

France alone saw a 7.7 percent increase in tourist traffic, another sign that it has rebounded from low numbers following a string of terrorist attacks in 2015 and 2016. However, so many people are visiting France again that popular sites like the Eiffel Tower, The Louvre and Carcassonne are now overrun with visitors .

The country's neighbor of Belgium also suffered as a result of tourism attacks in 2017, but pushed hard to rebound and came back strong last year. The country is known for its exemplary beer and food scene, which connoisseurs continue to love.

7. North-East Asia

Thanks to strong growth in South Korea and Mongolia, the North-East Asia region had a banner year in 2018. Japan and Macao also saw strong numbers, which helped contribute to the 168 million tourists who visited the region in 2018. 

The fastest-growing destination here, South Korea, was likely boosted by its high-profile hosting of the 2018 Olympics, in the thriving county of PyeongChang. Visitors to this area can enjoy the excellent ski slopes that made it an ideal host for the Winter Games.

Even the slowest-growing country, China — the largest destination in North-East Asia — is on the upswing.

According to the WTO, North-East Asia is poised to grow even more in the coming years. Experts predict that the opening of the Hong-Kong- Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, which connects mainland China, Macau and Hong Kong, will increase the flow of people moving between the three destinations. The 34-mile bridge cost $20 billion to build (it took nine years!) and is the longest sea-crossing bridge ever built.

6. Subsaharan Africa

Places like Cabo Verde, Reunion, Kenya and Mauritius are leading the way for this increasingly popular region. 

The fastest-growing destination here, the island of Reunion, is an overseas region of France located east of Madagascar. With its mix of black- and white-sand beaches, it's no surprise it's been increasing its profile among international visitors. 

The next fastest-growing destination in the region, Cabo Verde (which until recently was named Cape Verde), is made up of 10 tropical islands located off the western coast of Senegal and Mauritania. The sun shines nearly all year round here, and festivals and music play a prominent role.

South Africa, which is the most-visited country in Subsaharan Africa, only saw a modest 1.7 percent increase in international arrivals, likely because of a drought in Cape Town and a strong currency, according to the WTO.

5. Central and Eastern Europe

More than 144 million people visited Central and Eastern Europe last year, representing a healthy increase over 2017. Hungary saw a 15.3 percent increase in tourism traffic, thanks in part to improved air connectivity, according to the WTO. The largest country in this region, Russia, saw just 1.4 percent growth among tourist arrivals but a 40 percent increase in tourism spending thanks to the FIFA World Cup that took place in June and July.

But the best-performing country, perhaps surprisingly, was Kazakhstan. Located south of central Russia and west of China, this massive landlocked country is home to some incredible natural landscapes, like Charyn Canyon and Big Almaty Lake, as well as many awe-inspiring mosques. It’s also relatively easy to travel to Kazakhstan — the citizens of many countries, including the U.S., can visit for up to 30 days without a visa.

4. Southern/Mediterranean Europe

Nearly a dozen countries saw double-digit growth in the Southern and Mediterranean Europe region, with Slovenia and Turkey leading the way. Overall, some 286.2 million people visited this part of the world last year.

A favorable exchange rate drew more people to Turkey, which saw 22.6 percent growth in international visitors. Slovenia, which grew even more than Turkey, was bolstered by a boost in media attention, thanks in part to an increasingly acclaimed culinary scene; Slovenian chef Ana Roš is a rock star of the foodie world, and was named the best female chef in the world in 2017.

Greece, where international visits grew by 10.8 percent, benefited by attracting more Chinese, Arab and American tourists last year, which accounted for some of its growth, according to the WTO. Americans were also eager to travel to Italy, which helped boost that country’s numbers by 4.9 percent. 

3. South-East Asia

International interest in Vietnam skyrocketed in 2018, as the country welcomed 15.5 million tourists from all over the world. With its flavorful local foods, affordability, varying terrain and bustling cities, it’s no surprise that the country is at the top of many travelers’ bucket lists. Ha Long Bay, for instance, is popular among kayakers, hikers and casual explorers who experience the blue-green waters and rocky formations on various boat tours.

All told, it was a good year for the South-East Asia region, which recorded 129.3 million international tourist arrivals. Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines also saw strong growth last year, thanks in part to additional visits from Chinese travelers.

2. Middle East

Nearly topping the list is the Middle East, where 63.6 million tourists headed in 2018. Visits to Egypt in particular ballooned last year. Saudi Arabia was also a popular choice among travelers, garnering a 30.3 percent increase. And since many travelers book joint tours, Jordan piggybacked off of Egypt’s popularity and saw a 7.7 percent increase in international traffic.

In Egypt, tourists embraced Cairo, which made the top 10 list for Middle East destinations in the 2018 TripAdvisor Travelers’ Choice Awards. The country’s capital city offers easy access to the famed Pyramids of Giza and the Great Sphinx, as well as the mummies and artifacts of the Egyptian Museum.

1. North Africa

The fastest-growing region in the world is North Africa, which welcomed nearly 24 million visitors in 2018.

The WTO credits “the lifting of negative travel advice” for a surge in European tourists visiting Tunisia, which saw incredible growth over the previous year.

Tunisia, home to more than 11 million people, offers a diverse mix of opportunities for tourists, from its picturesque Mediterranean beaches to the sand dunes of the Sahara. There are also a number of historical and cultural sites to visit, such as the Roman Coliseum at El Jem (which is one of the largest ancient amphitheaters in the world) and the remains of the ancient city of Carthage.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 24 February 2024

Modeling the link between tourism and economic development: evidence from homogeneous panels of countries

• Pablo Juan Cárdenas-García   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1779-392X 1 ,
• Juan Gabriel Brida 2 &
• Verónica Segarra 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  308 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1079 Accesses

Metrics details

• Development studies

Having previously analyzed the relationship between tourism and economic growth from distinct perspectives, this paper attempts to fill the void existing in scientific research on the relationship between tourism and economic development, by analyzing the relationship between these variables using a sample of 123 countries between 1995 and 2019. The Dumistrescu and Hurlin adaptation of the Granger causality test was used. This study takes a critical look at causal analysis with heterogeneous panels, given the substantial differences found between the results of the causal analysis with the complete panel as compared to the analysis of homogeneous country groups, in terms of their dynamics of tourism specialization and economic development. On the one hand, a one-way causal relationship exists from tourism to development in countries having low levels of tourism specialization and development. On the other hand, a one-way causal relationship exists by which development contributes to tourism in countries with high levels of development and tourism specialization.

Similar content being viewed by others

Gravity models do not explain, and cannot predict, international migration dynamics

The coordination pattern of tourism efficiency and development level in Guangdong Province under high-quality development

Analysis of spatial-temporal pattern, dynamic evolution and influencing factors of health tourism development in China

Introduction.

Across the world, tourism is one of the most important sectors. It has undergone exponential growth since the mid-1900s and is currently experiencing growth rates that exceed those of other economic sectors (Yazdi, 2019 ).

Today, tourism is a major source of income for countries that specialize in this sector, generating 5.8% of the global GDP (5.8 billion US$) in 2021 (UNWTO, 2022 ) and providing 5.4% of all jobs (289 million) worldwide. Although its relevance is clear, tourism data have declined dramatically due to the recent impact of the Covid-19 health crisis. In 2019, prior to the pandemic (UNWTO, 2020 ), tourism represented 10.3% of the worldwide GDP (9.6 billion US$), with the number of tourism-related jobs reaching 10.2% of the global total (333 million). With the evolution of the pandemic and the regained trust of tourists across the globe, it is estimated that by 2022, approximately 80% of the pre-pandemic figures will be attained, with a full recovery being expected by 2024 (UNWTO, 2022 ).

Given the importance of this economic activity, many countries consider tourism to be a tool enabling economic growth (Corbet et al., 2019 ; Ohlan, 2017 ; Xia et al., 2021 ). Numerous works have analyzed the relationship between increased tourism and economic growth; and some systematic reviews have been carried out on this relationship (Brida et al., 2016 ; Ahmad et al., 2020 ), examining the main contributions over the first two decades of this century. These reviews have revealed evidence in this area: in some cases, it has been found that tourism contributes to economic growth while, in other cases, the economic cycle influences tourism expansion. Moreover, other works offer evidence of a bi-directional relationship between these variables.

Distinct international organizations (OECD, 2010 ; UNCTAD, 2011 ) have suggested that not only does tourism promote economic growth, it also contributes to socio-economic advances in the host regions. This may be the real importance of tourism, since the ultimate objective of any government is to improve a country’s socio-economic development (UNDP, 1990 ).

The development of economic and other policies related to the economic scope of tourism, in addition to promoting economic growth, are also intended to improve other non-economic factors such as education, safety, and health. Improvements in these factors lead to a better life for the host population (Lee, 2017 ; Todaro and Smith, 2020 ).

Given tourism’s capacity as an instrument of economic development (Cárdenas-García et al., 2015 ), distinct institutions such as the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, the United Nations World Tourism Organization and the World Bank, have begun funding projects that consider tourism to be a tool for improved socio-economic development, especially in less advanced countries (Carrillo and Pulido, 2019 ).

This new trend within the scientific literature establishes, firstly, that tourism drives economic growth and, secondly, that thanks to this economic growth, the population’s economic conditions may be improved (Croes et al., 2021 ; Kubickova et al., 2017 ). However, to take advantage of the economic growth generated by tourism activity to boost economic development, specific policies should be developed. These policies should determine the initial conditions to be met by host countries committed to tourism as an instrument of economic development. These conditions include regulation, tax system, and infrastructure provision (Cárdenas-García and Pulido-Fernández, 2019 ; Lejárraga and Walkenhorst, 2013 ; Meyer and Meyer, 2016 ).

Therefore, it is necessary to differentiate between the analysis of the relationship between tourism and economic growth, whereby tourism boosts the economy of countries committed to tourism, traditionally measured through an increase in the Gross Domestic Product (Alcalá-Ordóñez et al., 2023 ; Brida et al., 2016 ), and the analysis of the relationship between tourism and economic development, which measures the effect of tourism on other factors (not only economic content but also inequality, education, and health) which, together with economic criteria, serve as the foundation to measure a population’s development (Todaro and Smith, 2020 ).

However, unlike the analysis of the relationship between tourism and economic growth, few empirical studies have examined tourism’s capacity as a tool for development (Bojanic and Lo, 2016 ; Cárdenas-García and Pulido-Fernández, 2019 ; Croes, 2012 ).

To help fill this gap in the literature analyzing the relationship between tourism and economic development, this work examines the contribution of tourism to economic development, given that the relationship between tourism and economic growth has been widely analyzed by the scientific literature. Moreover, given that the literature has demonstrated that tourism contributes to economic growth, this work aims to analyze whether it also contributes to economic development, considering development in the broadest possible sense by including economic and socioeconomic variables in the multi-dimensional concept (Wahyuningsih et al., 2020 ).

Therefore, based on the results of this work, it is possible to determine whether the commitment made by many international organizations and institutions in financing tourism projects designed to improve the host population’s socioeconomic conditions, especially in countries with lower development levels, has, in fact, resulted in improved development levels.

It also presents a critical view of causal analyses that rely on heterogeneous panels, examining whether the conclusions reached for a complete panel differ from those obtained when analyzing homogeneous groups within the panel. As seen in the literature review analyzing the relationship between tourism and economic development, empirical works using panel data from several countries tend to generalize the results obtained to the entire panel, without verifying whether, in fact, they are relevant for all of the analyzed countries or only some of the same. Therefore, this study takes an innovative approach by examining the panel countries separately, analyzing the homogeneous groups distinctly.

Therefore, this article presents an empirical analysis examining whether a causal relationship exists between tourism and economic development, with development being considered to be a multi-dimensional variable including a variety of factors, distinct from economic ones. Panel data from 123 countries during the 1995–2019 period was considered to examine the causal relationship between tourism and economic development. For this, the Granger causality test was performed, applying the adaptation of this test made by Dumistrescu and Hurlin. First, a causal analysis was performed collectively for all of the countries of the panel. Then, a specific analysis was performed for each of the homogeneous groups of countries identified within the panel, formed according to levels of tourism specialization and development.

This article provides information on tourism’s capacity to serve as an instrument of development, helping to fill the gap in scientific research in this area. It critically examines the use of causal analyses based on heterogeneous samples of countries. This work offers the following main novelties as compared to prior works on the same topic: firstly, it examines the relationship between tourism and economic development, while the majority of the existing works only analyze the relationship between tourism and economic growth; secondly, it analyzes a large sample of countries, representing all of the global geographic areas, whereas the literature has only considered works from specific countries or a limited number of nations linked to a specific country in a specific geographical area, and; thirdly, it analyzes the panel both individually and collectively, for each of the homogenous groups of countries identified, permitting the adoption of specific policies for each group of countries according to the identified relationship, as compared to the majority of works that only analyze the complete panel, generalizing these results for all countries in the sample.

Overall, the results suggest that a relationship exists between tourism and development in all of the analyzed countries from the sample. A specific analysis was performed for homogeneous country groups, only finding a causal relationship between tourism and development in certain country groups. This suggests that the use of heterogeneous country samples in causal analyses may give rise to inappropriate conclusions. This may be the case, for example, when finding causality for a broad panel of countries, although, in fact, only a limited number of panel units actually explain this causal relationship.

The remainder of the document is organized as follows: the next section offers a review of the few existing scientific works on the relationship between tourism and economic development; section three describes the data used and briefly explains the methodology carried out; section four details the results obtained from the empirical analysis; and finally, the conclusions section discusses the main implications of the work, also providing some recommendations for economic policy.

Tourism and economic development

Numerous organizations currently recognize the importance of tourism as an instrument of economic development. It was not until the late 20th century, however, when the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), in its Manila Declaration, established that the development of international tourism may “help to eliminate the widening economic gap between developed and developing countries and ensure the steady acceleration of economic and social development and progress, in particular of the developing countries” (UNWTO, 1980 ).

From a theoretical point of view, tourism may be considered an effective activity for economic development. In fact, the theoretical foundations of many works are based on the relationship between tourism and development (Ashley et al., 2007 ; Bolwell and Weinz, 2011 ; Dieke, 2000 ; Sharpley and Telfer, 2015 ; Sindiga, 1999 ).

The link between tourism and economic development may arise from the increase in tourist activity, which promotes economic growth. As a result of this economic growth, policies may be developed to improve the resident population’s level of development (Alcalá-Ordóñez and Segarra, 2023 ).

Therefore, it is essential to identify the key variables permitting the measurement of the level of economic development and, therefore, those variables that serve as a basis for analyzing whether tourism results in improved the socioeconomic conditions of the host population (Croes et al., 2021 ). Since economic development refers not only to economic-based variables, but also to others such as inequality, education, or health (Todaro and Smith, 2020 ), when analyzing the economic development concept, it has been frequently linked to human development (Pulido-Fernández and Cárdenas-García, 2021 ). Thus, we wish to highlight the major advances resulting from the publication of the Human Development Index (HDI) when measuring economic development, since it defines development as a multidimensional variable that combines three dimensions: health, education, and income level (UNDP, 2023 ).

However, despite the importance that many organizations have given to tourism as an instrument of economic development, basing their work on the relationship between these variables, a wide gap continues to exist in the scientific literature for empirical studies that examine the existence of a relationship between tourism and economic development, with very few empirical analyses analyzing this relationship.

First, a group of studies has examined the causal relationship between tourism and economic development, using heterogeneous samples, and without previously grouping the subjects based on homogeneous characteristics. Croes ( 2012 ) analyzed the relationship between tourism and economic development, measured through the HDI, finding that a bidirectional relationship exists for the cases of Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Using annual data from 2001 to 2014, Meyer and Meyer ( 2016 ) performed a collective analysis of South African regions, determining that tourism contributes to economic development. For a panel of 63 countries worldwide, and once again relying on the HDI to define economic development, it was determined that tourism contributes to economic development. Kubickova et al. ( 2017 ), using annual data for the 1995–2007 period, analyzed Central America and Caribbean nations, determining the existence of this relationship by which tourism influences the level of economic development and that the level of development conditions the expansion of tourism. Another work examined nine micro-states of America, Europe, and Africa (Fahimi et al., 2018 ); and 21 European countries in which human capital was measured, as well as population density and tourism income, analyzing panel data and determining that tourism results in improved economic development. Finally, within this first group of works, Chattopadhyay et al. ( 2022 ), using a broad panel of destinations, (133 countries from all geographic areas of the globe) determined that there is no relationship between tourism and economic development.

Studies performed with large country samples that attempt to determine the causal relationship between tourism and economic development by analyzing countries that do not necessarily share homogeneous characteristics, may lead to erroneous conclusions, establishing causality (or not) for panel sets even when this situation is actually explained by a small number of panel units.

Second, another group of studies have analyzed the causal relationship between tourism and economic development, considering the previous limitation, and has grouped the subjects based on their homogeneous characteristics. Cárdenas-García et al. ( 2015 ) used annual data from 1990–2010, in a collective analysis of 144 countries, making a joint panel analysis and then examining two homogeneous groups of countries based on their level of economic development. They determined that tourism contributes to economic development, but only in the most developed group of countries. They determined that tourism contributes to economic development, both for the total sample and for the homogeneous groups analyzed. Pulido-Fernández and Cárdenas-García ( 2021 ), using annual data for the 1993–2017 period, performed a joint analysis of 143 countries, followed by a specific analysis for three groups of countries sharing homogeneous characteristics in terms of tourism growth and development level. They determined that tourism contributes to economic development and that development level conditions tourism growth in the most developed countries.

Finally, another group of studies has analyzed the causal relationship between tourism and economic development in specific cases examined on an individual basis. In a specific analysis by Aruba et al. ( 2016 ), it was determined that tourism contributes to human development. Analyzing Malaysia, Tan et al. ( 2019 ) determined that tourism contributes to development, but only over the short term, and that level of development does not influence tourism growth. Similar results were obtained by Boonyasana and Chinnakum ( 2020 ) in an analysis carried out in Thailand. In this case of Thailand (Boonyasana and Chinnakum, 2020 ), which relied on the HDI, the relationship with economic growth was also analyzed, finding that an increase in tourism resulted in improved economic development. Finally, Croes et al. ( 2021 ), in a specific analysis of Poland, determined that tourism does not contribute to development.

As seen from the analysis of the most relevant publications detailed in Table 1 , few empirical works have considered the relationship between tourism and economic development, in contrast to the numerous works from the scientific literature that have examined the relationship between tourism and economic growth. Most of the works that have empirically analyzed the relationship between tourism and economic development have determined that tourism positively influences the improved economic development in host destinations. To a lesser extent, some studies have found a bidirectional relationship between these variables (Croes, 2012 ; Kubickova et al., 2017 ; Pulido-Fernández and Cárdenas-García, 2021 ) while others have found no relationship between tourism and economic development (Chattopadhyay et al., 2022 ; Croes et al., 2021 ).

Furthermore, in empirical works relying on panel data, the results have tended to be generalized to the entire panel, suggesting that tourism improves economic development in all countries that are part of the panel. This has been the case in all of the examined works, with the exception of two studies that analyzed the panel separately (Cárdenas-García et al., 2015 ; Pulido-Fernández and Cárdenas-García, 2021 ).

Thus, it may be suggested that the use of very large country panels and, therefore, including very heterogeneous destinations, as was the case in the works of Biagi et al. ( 2017 ) using a panel of 63 countries, as well as that of Chattopadhyay et al. ( 2022 ) working with a panel of 133 countries, may lead to error, given that this relationship may only arise in certain destinations of the panel, although it is generalized to the entire panel.

This work serves to fill this gap in the literature by analyzing the panel both collectively and separately, for each of the homogenous groups of countries that have been previously identified.

The lack of relevant works on the relationship between tourism and development, and of studies using causal analyses to examine these variables based on heterogeneous panels, may lead to the creation of rash generalizations regarding the entirety of the analyzed countries. Thus, conclusions may be reached that are actually based on only specific panel units. Therefore, we believe that this study is justified.

Methodological approach

Given the objective of this study, to determine whether a causal relationship exists between tourism and socio-economic development, it is first necessary to identify the variables necessary to measure tourism activity and development level. Thus, the indicators are highly relevant, given that the choice of indicator may result in distinct results (Rosselló-Nadal and He, 2020 ; Song and Wu, 2021 ).

Table 2 details the measurement variables used in this work. Specifically, the following indicators have been used in this paper to measure tourism and economic development:

Measurement of tourist activity. In this work, we decided to consider tourism specialization, examining the number of international tourists received by a country with regard to its population size as the measurement variable.

This information on international tourists at a national level has been provided annually by the United Nations World Tourism Organization since 1995 (UNWTO, 2023 ). This variable has been relativized based on the country’s population, according to information provided by the World Bank on the residents of each country (WB, 2023 ).

Tourism specialization is considered to be the level of tourism activity, specifically, the arrival of tourists, relativized based on the resident population, which allows for comparisons to be made between countries. It accurately measures whether or not a country is specialized in this economic activity. If the variable is used in absolute values, for example, the United States receives more tourists than Malta, so based on this variable it may be that the first country is more touristic than the second. However, in reality, just the opposite happens, Malta is a country in which tourist activity is more important for its economy than it is in the United States, so the use of tourist specialization as a measurement variable classifies, correctly, both Malta as a country with high tourism specialization and to the United States as a country with low tourism specialization.

Therefore, most of the scientific literature establishes the need to use the total number of tourists relativized per capita, given that this allows for the determination of the level of tourism specialization of a tourism destination (Dritsakis, 2012 ; Tang and Abosedra, 2016 ); furthermore, this indicator has been used in works analyzing the relationship between tourism and economic development (for example, Biagi et al., 2017 ; Boonyasana and Chinnakum; 2020 ; Croes et al., 2021 ; Fahimi et al., 2018 ).

Although some works have used other variables to measure tourism, such as tourism income, exports, or tourist spending, these variables are not available for all of the countries making up the panel, so the sample would have been significantly reduced. Furthermore, the data available for these alternative variables do not come from homogeneous databases, and therefore cannot be compared.

Measurement of economic development. In this work, the Human Development Index has been used to measure development.

This information is provided by the United Nations Development Program, which has been publishing it annually at the country level since 1990 (UNDP, 2023 ).

The selection of this indicator to measure economic development is in line with other works that have defended its use to measure the impact on development level (for example, Jalil and Kamaruddin, 2018 ; Sajith and Malathi, 2020 ); this indicator has also been used in works analyzing the relationship between tourism and economic development (for example, Meyer and Meyer, 2016 ; Kubickova et al., 2017 ; Pulido-Fernández and Cárdenas-García, 2021 ).

Although some works have used other variables, such as poverty or inequality, to measure development, these variables are not available for all of the countries forming the panel. Therefore the sample would have been considerably reduced and the data available for these alternative variables do not come from homogenous databases, and therefore comparisons cannot be made.

These indicators are available for a total of 123 countries, across the globe. Thus, these countries form part of the sample analyzed in this study.

As for the time frame considered in this work, two main issues were relevant when determining this period: on the one hand, there is an initial time restriction for the analyzed series, given that information on the arrival of international tourists is only available as of 1995, the first year when this information was provided by the UNWTO. On the other hand, it was necessary to consider the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting tourism sector crisis, which also affected the global economy as a whole. Therefore, our time series ended as of 2019, with the overall time frame including data from 1995 to 2019, a 25-year period.

Previous considerations

Caution should be taken when considering causality tests to determine the relationships between two variables, especially in cases in which large heterogeneous samples are used. This is due to the fact that generalized conclusions may be reached when, in fact, the causality is only produced by some of the subjects of the analyzed sample. This study is based on this premise. While heterogeneity in a sample is clearly a very relevant aspect, in some cases, it may lead to conclusions that are less than appropriate.

In this work, a collective causal analysis has been performed on all of the countries of the panel, which consists of 123 countries. However, given that it is a broad sample including countries having major differences in terms of size, region, development level, or tourism performance, the conclusions obtained from this analysis may lead to the generalization of certain conclusions for the entire sample set, when in fact, these relationships may only be the case for a very small portion of the sample. This has been the case in other works that have made generalized conclusions from relatively large samples in which the sample’s homogeneity regarding certain patterns was not previously verified (Badulescu et al., 2021 ; Ömer et al., 2018 ; Gedikli et al., 2022 ; Meyer and Meyer, 2016 ; Xia et al., 2021 ).

Therefore, after performing a collective analysis of the entire panel, the causal relationship between tourism and development was then determined for homogeneous groups of countries that share common patterns of tourism performance and economic development level, to analyze whether the generalized conclusions obtained in the previous section differ from those made for the individual groups. This was in line with strategies that have been used in other works that have grouped countries based on tourism performance (Min et al., 2016 ) or economic development level (Cárdenas-García et al., 2015 ), prior to engaging in causal analyses. To classify the countries into homogeneous groups based on tourism performance and development level, a previous work was used (Brida et al., 2023 ) which considered the same sample of 123 countries, relying on the same data to measure tourism and development level and the same time frame. This guarantees the coherence of the results obtained in this work.

From the entire panel of 123 countries, a total of six country groups were identified as having a similar dynamic of tourism and development, based on qualitative dynamic behavior. In addition, an “outlier” group of countries was found. These outlier countries do not fit into any of the groups (Brida et al., 2023 ). The three main groups of countries were considered, discarding three other groups due to their small size. Table 3 presents the group of countries sharing similar dynamics in terms of tourism performance and economic development level.

Applied methodology

As indicated above, this work uses the Tourist Specialization Rate (TIR) and the Human Development Index (HDI) to measure tourism and economic development, respectively. In both cases, we work with the natural logarithm (l.TIR and l.HDI) as well as the first differences between the variables (d.l.TIR and d.l.HDI), which measure the growth of these variables.

A complete panel of countries is used, consisting of 123 countries. The three main groups indicated in the previous section are also considered (the first of the groups contains 36 countries, the second contains 29 and the last group contains 43).

The Granger causality test ( 1969 ) is used to analyze the relationships between tourism specialization and development level; this test shows if one variable predicts the other, but this should not be confused with a cause-effect relationship.

In the context of panel data, different tests may be used to analyze causality. Most of these tests differ with regard to the assumptions of homogeneity of the panel unit coefficients. While the standard form of the Granger causality test for panels assumes that all of the coefficients are equal between the countries forming part of the panel, the Dumitrescu and Hurlin test (2012) considers that the coefficients are different between the countries forming part of the panel. Therefore, in this work, Granger’s causality is analyzed using the Dumitrescu and Hurlin test (2012). In this test, the null hypothesis is of no homogeneous causality; in other words, according to the null hypothesis, causality does not exist for any of the countries of the analyzed sample whereas, according to the alternative hypothesis, in which the regression model may be different in the distinct countries, causality is verified for at least some countries. The approach used by Dumitrescu and Hurlin ( 2012 ) is more flexible in its assumptions since although the coefficients of the regressions proposed in the tests are constant over time, the possibility that they may differ for each of the panel elements is accepted. This approach has more realistic assumptions, given that countries exhibit different behaviors. One relevant aspect of this type of tests is that they offer no information on which countries lead to the rejection of the lack of causality.

Given the specific characteristics of this type of tests, the presence of very heterogeneous samples may lead to inappropriate conclusions. For example, causality may be assumed for a panel of countries, when only a few of the panel’s units actually explain this relationship. Therefore, this analysis attempts to offer novel information on this issue, revealing that the conclusions obtained for the complete set of 123 countries are not necessarily the same as those obtained for each homogeneous group of countries when analyzed individually.

Given the nature of the variables considered in this work, specifically, regarding tourism, it is expected that a shock taking place in one country may be transmitted to other countries. Therefore, we first analyze the dependency between countries, since this may lead to biases (Pesaran, 2006 ). The Pesaran cross-sectional dependence test (2004) is used for the total sample and for each of the three groups individually.

First, a dependence analysis is performed for the countries of the sample, verifying the existence of dependence between the panel subjects. A cross-sectional dependence test (Pesaran, 2004 ) is used, first for the overall set of countries in the sample and second, for each of the groups of countries sharing homogeneous characteristics.

The results are presented in Table 4 , indicating that the test is statistically significant for the two variables, both for all of the countries in the sample and for each of the homogeneous country clusters, for the variables taken in logarithms as well as their first differences.

Upon rejecting the null hypothesis of non-cross-sectional dependence, it is assumed that a shock occurs in a country that may be transmitted to other countries in the sample. In fact, the lack of dependence between the variables, both tourism and development, is natural in this type of variables, given the economic cycle through the globalization of the economic activity, common regions visited by tourists, the spillover effect, etc.

Second, the stationary nature of the series is tested, given that cross-sectional dependence has been detected between the variables. First-generation tests may present certain biases in the rejection of the null hypothesis since first-generation unit root tests do not permit the inclusion of dependence between countries (Pesaran, 2007 ). On the other hand, second-generation tests permit the inclusion of dependence and heterogeneity. Therefore, for this analysis, the augmented IPS test (CIPS) proposed by Pesaran ( 2007 ) is used. This second-generation unit root test is the most appropriate for this case, given the cross-sectional dependence.

The results are presented in Table 5 , showing the statistics of the CIPS test for both the overall set of countries in the sample and in each of the homogeneous clusters of countries. The results are presented for models with 1, 2, and 3 delays, considering both the variables in the logarithm and their first differences.

As observed, the null hypothesis of unit root is not rejected for the variables in levels, but it is rejected for the first differences. This result is found in all of the cases, for both the total sample and for each of the homogeneous groups, with a significance of 1%. Therefore, the variables are stationary in their first differences, that is, the variables are integrated at order 1. Given that the causality test requires stationary variables, in this work it is used with the variation or growth rate of the variables, that is, the variable at t minus the variable at t−1.

Finally, to analyze Granger’s causality, the test by Dumitrescu and Hurlin ( 2012 ) is used. This test is used to analyze the causal relationship in both directions; that is, whether tourism contributes to economic development and whether the economic development level conditions tourism specialization. Statistics are calculated considering models with 1, 2, and 3 delays. Considering that cross-sectional dependence exists, the p-values are corrected using bootstrap techniques (making 500 replications). Given that the test requires stationary variables, primary differences of both variables were considered.

Table 6 presents the result of the Granger causality analysis using the Dumitrescu and Hurlin test (2012), considering the null hypothesis that tourism does not condition development level, either for all of the countries or for each homogeneous country cluster.

For the entire sample of countries, the results suggest that the null hypothesis of no causality from tourism to development was rejected when considering 3 delays (in other works analyzing the relationship between tourism and development, the null hypothesis was rejected with a similar level of delay: Rivera ( 2017 ) when considering 3–4 delays or Ulrich et al. ( 2018 ) when considering 3 delays). This suggests that for the entire panel, one-way causality exists whereby tourism influences economic development, demonstrating that tourism specialization contributes positively to improving the economic development of countries opting for tourism development. This is in line with the results of Meyer and Meyer ( 2016 ), Ridderstaat et al. ( 2016 ); Biagi et al. ( 2017 ); Fahimi et al. ( 2018 ); Tan et al. ( 2019 ), or Boonyasana and Chinnakum ( 2020 ).

However, the previous conclusion is very general, given that it is based on a very large sample of countries. Therefore, it may be erroneous to generalize that tourism is a tool for development. In fact, the results indicate that, when analyzing causality by homogeneous groups of countries, sharing similar dynamics in both tourism and development, the null hypothesis of no causality from tourism to development is only rejected for the group C countries, when considering three delays. Therefore, the development of generalized policies to expand tourism in order to improve the socioeconomic conditions of any destination type should consider that this relationship between tourism and economic development does not occur in all cases. Thus, it should first be determined if the countries opting for this activity have certain characteristics that will permit a positive relationship between said variables.

In other words, it may be a mistake to generalize that tourism contributes to economic development for all countries, even though a causal relationship exists for the entire panel. Instead, it should be understood that tourism permits an improvement in the level of development only in certain countries, in line with the results of Cárdenas-García et al. ( 2015 ) or Pulido-Fernández and Cárdenas-García ( 2021 ). In this specific work, this positive relationship between tourism and development only occurs in countries from group C, which are characterized by a low level of tourism specialization and a low level of development. Some works have found similar results for countries from group C. For example, Sharma et al. ( 2020 ) found the same relationship for India, while Nonthapot ( 2014 ) had similar findings for certain countries in Asia and the Pacific, which also made up group C. Some recent works have analyzed the relationship between tourism specialization and economic growth, finding similar results. This has been the case with Albaladejo et al. ( 2023 ), who found a relationship from tourism to economic growth only for countries where income is low, and the tourism sector is not yet developed.

These countries have certain limitations since even when tourism contributes to improved economic development, their low levels of tourism specialization do not allow them to reach adequate host population socioeconomic conditions. Therefore, investments in tourism are necessary there in order to increase tourism specialization levels. This increase in tourism may allow these countries to achieve development levels that are similar to other countries having better population conditions.

Therefore, in this group, consisting of 43 countries, a causal relationship exists, given that these countries are characterized by a low level of tourism specialization. However, the weakness of this activity, due to its low relevance in the country, prevents it from increasing the level of economic development. In these countries (details of these countries can be found in Table 3 , specifically, the countries included in Group C), policymakers have to develop policies to improve tourism infrastructure as a prior step to improving their levels of development.

On the other hand, in Table 7 , the results of Granger’s causal analysis based on the Dumitrescu and Hurlin test (2012) are presented, considering the null hypothesis that development level does not condition an increase in tourism, both in the overall sample set and in each of the homogeneous country clusters.

The results indicate that, for the entire country sample, the null hypothesis of no causality from development to tourism is not rejected, for any type of delay. This suggests that, for the entire panel, one-way causality does not exist, with level of development influencing the level of tourism specialization. This is in line with the results of Croes et al. ( 2021 ) in a specific analysis in Poland.

Once again, this conclusion is quite general, given that it has been based on a very broad sample of countries. Therefore, it may be erroneous to generalize that the development level does not condition tourism specialization. Past studies using a large panel of countries, such as the work of Chattopadhyay et al. ( 2022 ) analyzing panel data from 133 countries, have been generalized to all of the analyzed countries, suggesting that economic development level does not condition the arrival of tourists to the destination, although, in fact, this relationship may only exist in specific countries within the analyzed panel.

In fact, the results indicate that, when analyzing causality by homogeneous country groups sharing a similar dynamic, for both tourism and development, the null hypothesis of no causality from development to tourism is only rejected for country group A when considering 2–3 delays. Although the statistics of the test differ, when the sample’s time frame is small, as in this case, the Z-bar tilde statistic is more appropriate.

Thus, development level influences tourism growth in Group A countries, which are characterized by a high level of development and tourism specialization, in accordance with the prior results of Pulido-Fernández and Cárdenas-García ( 2021 ).

These results, suggesting that tourism is affected by economic development level, but only in the most developed countries, imply that the existence of better socioeconomic conditions in these countries, which tend to have better healthcare systems, infrastructures, levels of human resource training, and security, results in an increase in tourist arrivals to these countries. In fact, when traveling to a specific tourist destination, if this destination offers attractive factors and a higher level of economic development, an increase in tourist flows was fully expected.

In this group, consisting of 36 countries, the high development level, that is, the proper provision of socio-economic factors in their economic foundations (training, infrastructures, safety, health, etc.) has led to the attraction of a large number of tourists to their region, making their countries having high tourism specialization.

Although international organizations have recognized the importance of tourism as an instrument of economic development, based on the theoretical relationship between these two variables, few empirical studies have considered the consequences of the relationship between tourism and development.

Furthermore, some hasty generalizations have been made regarding the analysis of this relationship and the analysis of the relationship of tourism with other economic variables. Oftentimes, conclusions have been based on heterogeneous panels containing large numbers of subjects. This may lead to erroneous results interpretation, basing these results on the entire panel when, in fact, they only result from specific panel units.

Given this gap in the scientific literature, this work attempts to analyze the relationship between tourism and economic development, considering the panel data in a complete and separate manner for each of the previously identified country groups.

The results highlight the need to adopt economic policies that consider the uniqueness of each of the countries that use tourism as an instrument to improve their socioeconomic conditions, given that the results differ according to the specific characteristics of the analyzed country groups.

This work provides precise results regarding the need for policymakers to develop public policies to ensure that tourism contributes to the improvement of economic development, based on the category of the country using this economic activity to achieve greater levels of economic development.

Specifically, this work has determined that tourism contributes to economic development, but only in countries that previously had a lower level of tourism specialization and were less developed. This highlights the need to invest in tourism to attract more tourists to these countries to increase their economic development levels. Countries having major natural attraction resources or factors, such as the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, Morocco, and Vietnam, need to improve their positioning in the international markets in order to attain a higher level of tourism specialization, which will lead to improved development levels.

Furthermore, the results of this study suggest that a greater past economic development level of a country will help attract more tourists to these countries, highlighting the need to invest in security, infrastructures, and health in order for these destinations to be considered attractive and increase tourist arrival. In fact, given their increased levels of development, countries such as Spain, Greece, Italy, Qatar, and Uruguay have become attractive to tourists, with soaring numbers of visitors and high levels of tourism specialization.

Therefore, the analysis of the relationship between tourism and economic development should focus on the differentiated treatment of countries in terms of their specific characteristics, since working with panel data with large samples and heterogenous characteristics may lead to incorrect results generalizations to all of the analyzed destinations, even though the obtained relationship in fact only takes place in certain countries of the sample.

Conclusions and policy implications

Within this context, the objective of this study is twofold: on the one hand, it aims to contribute to the lack of empirical works analyzing the causal relationship between tourism and economic development using Granger’s causality analysis for a broad sample of countries from across the globe. On the other hand, it critically examines the use of causality analysis in heterogeneous samples, by verifying that the results for the panel set differ from the results obtained when analyzing homogeneous groups in terms of tourism specialization and development level.

In fact, upon analyzing the causal relationship from tourism to development, and the causal relationship from development to tourism, the results from the entire panel, consisting of 123 countries, differ from those obtained when analyzing causality by homogeneous country groups, in terms of tourism specialization and economic development dynamics of these countries.

On the one hand, a one-way causality relationship is found to exist, whereby tourism influences economic development for the entire sample of countries, although this conclusion cannot be generalized, since this relationship is only explained by countries belonging to Group C (countries with low levels of tourism specialization and low development levels). This indicates that, although a causal relationship exists by which tourism contributes to economic development in these countries, the low level of tourism specialization does not permit growth to appropriate development levels.

The existence of a causal relationship whereby the increase in tourism precedes the improvement of economic development in this group of countries having a low level of tourism specialization and economic development, suggests the appropriateness of the focus by distinct international organizations, such as the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development or the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, on funding tourism projects (through the provision of tourism infrastructure, the stimulation of tourism supply, or positioning in international markets) in countries with low economic development levels. This work has demonstrated that investment in tourism results in the attracting of a greater flow of tourists, which will contribute to improved economic development levels.

Therefore, both international organizations financing projects and public administrations in these countries should increase the funding of projects linked to tourism development, in order to increase the flow of tourism to these destinations. This, given that an increase in tourism specialization suggests an increased level of development due to the demonstrated existence of a one-way causal relationship from tourism to development in these countries, many of which form part of the group of so-called “least developed” countries. However, according to the results obtained in this work, this relationship is not instantaneous, but rather, a certain delay exists in order for economic development to improve as a result of the increase in tourism. Therefore, public managers must adopt a medium and long-term vision of tourism activity as an instrument of development, moving away from short-term policies seeking immediate results, since this link only occurs over a broad time horizon.

On the other hand, this study reveals that a one-way causal relationship does not exist, by which the level of development influences tourism specialization level for the entire sample of countries. However, this conclusion, once again, cannot be generalized given that in countries belonging to Group A (countries with a high development level and a high tourism specialization level), a high level of economic development determines a higher level of tourism specialization. This is because the socio-economic structure of these countries (infrastructures, training or education, health, safety, etc.) permits their shaping as attractive tourist destinations, thereby increasing the number of tourists visiting them.

Therefore, investments made by public administrations to improve these factors in other countries that currently do not display this causal relationship implies the creation of the necessary foundations to increase their tourism specialization and, therefore, as shown in other works, tourism growth will permit economic growth, with all of the associated benefits for these countries.

Therefore, to attract tourist flows, it is not only important for a country to have attractive factors or resources, but also to have an adequate level of prior development. In other words, the tourists should perceive an adequate level of security in the destination; they should be able to use different infrastructures such as roads, airports, or the Internet; and they should receive suitable services at the destination from personnel having an appropriate level of training. The most developed countries, which are the destinations having the greatest endowment of these resources, are the ones that currently receive the most tourist flows thanks to the existence of these factors.

Therefore, less developed countries that are committed to tourism as an instrument to improve economic development should first commit to the provision of these resources if they hope to increase tourist flows. If this increase in tourism takes place in these countries, their economic development levels have been demonstrated to improve. However, since these countries are characterized by low levels of resources, cooperation by organizations financing the necessary investments is key to providing them with these resources.

Thus, a critical perspective is necessary when considering the relationship between tourism and economic development based on global causal analysis using heterogeneous samples with numerous subjects. As in this case, carrying out analyses on homogeneous groups may offer interesting results for policymakers attempting to suitably manage population development improvements due to tourism growth and tourism increases resulting from higher development levels.

One limitation of this work is its national scope since evidence suggests that tourism is a regional and local activity. Therefore, it may be interesting to apply this same approach on a regional level, using previously identified homogeneous groups.

And given that the existence of a causal relationship (in either direction) between tourism and development has only been determined for a specific set of countries, future works could consider other country-specific factors that may determine this causal relationship, in addition to the dynamics of tourism specialization and development level.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Ahmad N, Menegaki AN, Al-Muharrami S (2020) Systematic literature review of tourism growth nexus: An overview of the literature and a content analysis of 100 most influential papers. J Econ Surv 34(5):1068–1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12386

Article   Google Scholar  

Albaladejo I, Brida G, González M y Segarra V (2023) A new look to the tourism and economic growth nexus: a clustering and panel causality analysis. World Econ https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13459

Alcalá-Ordóñez A, Brida JG, Cárdenas-García PJ (2023) Has the tourism-led growth hypothesis been confirmed? Evidence from an updated literature review. Curr Issues Tour https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2023.2272730

Alcalá-Ordóñez A, Segarra V (2023) Tourism and economic development: a literature review to highlight main empirical findings. Tour Econom https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166231219638

Ashley C, De Brine P, Lehr A, Wilde H (2007) The role of the tourism sector in expanding economic opportunity. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge MA

Google Scholar  

Biagi B, Ladu MG, Royuela V (2017) Human development and tourism specialization. Evidence from a panel of developed and developing countries. Int J Tour Res 19(2):160–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2094

Badulescu D, Simut R, Mester I, Dzitac S, Sehleanu M, Bac DP, Badulescu A (2021) Do economic growth and environment quality contribute to tourism development in EU countries? A panel data analysis. Technol Econom Dev Econ 27(6):1509–1538. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2021.15781

Bojanic DC, Lo M (2016) A comparison of the moderating effect of tourism reliance on the economic development for islands and other countries. Tour Manag 53:207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.10.00

Bolwell D, Weinz W (2011) Poverty reduction through tourism. International Labour Office, Geneva

Boonyasana P, Chinnakum W (2020) Linkages among tourism demand, human development, and CO 2 emissions in Thailand. Abac J 40(3):78–98

Brida JG, Cárdenas-García PJ, Segarra V (2023) Turismo y Desarrollo Económico: una Exploración Empírica. Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE), Working Papers, 283

Brida JG, Cortes-Jimenez I, Pulina M (2016) Has the tourism-led growth hypothesis been validated? A literature review. Curr Issues Tour 19(5):394–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.868414

Cárdenas-García PJ, Pulido-Fernández JI (2019) Tourism as an economic development tool. Key factors. Curr Issues Tour 22(17):2082–2108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1420042

Cárdenas-García PJ, Sánchez-Rivero M, Pulido-Fernández JI (2015) Does tourism growth influence economic development? J Travel Res 54(2):206–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513514297

Carrillo I, Pulido JI, (2019) Is the financing of tourism by international financial institutions inclusive? A proposal for measurement. Curr Issues Tour 22:330–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1260529

Chattopadhyay M, Kumar A, Ali S, Mitra SK (2022) Human development and tourism growth’s relationship across countries: a panel threshold analysis. J Sustain Tour 30(6):1384–1402. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1949017

Corbet S, O’Connell JF, Efthymiou M, Guiomard C, Lucey B (2019) The impact of terrorism on European tourism. Ann Tour Res 75:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2018.12.012

Croes R (2012) Assessing tourism development from Sen’s capability approach. J Travel Res 51(5):542–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287511431323

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Croes R, Ridderstaat J, Bak M, Zientara P (2021) Tourism specialization, economic growth, human development and transition economies: the case of Poland. Tour Manag 82:104181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104181

Dieke P (2000) The political economy of tourism development in Africa. Cognizant, New York

Dritsakis N (2012) Tourism development and economic growth in seven Mediterranean countries: a panel data approach. Tour Econ 18(4):801–816. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2012.0140

Dumitrescu EI, Hurlin C (2012) Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econom Model 29(4):1450–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014

Fahimi A, Saint Akadiri S, Seraj M, Akadiri AC (2018) Testing the role of tourism and human capital development in economic growth. A panel causality study of micro states. Tour Manag Perspect 28:62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.08.004

Gedikli A, Erdoğan S, Çevik EI, Çevik E, Castanho RA, Couto G(2022) Dynamic relationship between international tourism, economic growth and environmental pollution in the OECD countries: evidence from panel VAR model. Econom Res 35:5907–5923. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2041063

Granger CWJ (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37(3):424–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791

Jalil SA, Kamaruddin MN (2018) Examining the relationship between human development index and socio-economic variables: a panel data analysis. J Int Bus Econ Entrepreneurship 3(2):37–44. https://doi.org/10.24191/jibe.v3i2.14431

Kubickova M, Croes R, Rivera M (2017) Human agency shaping tourism competitiveness and quality of life in developing economies. Tour Manag Perspect 22:120–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.03.002

Lee YS (2017) General theory of law and development. Cornell Int Law Rev 50(3):432–435

CAS   Google Scholar  

Lejárraga I, Walkenhorst P (2013) Economic policy, tourism trade and productive diversification. Int Econ 135:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2013.09.001

Meyer DF, Meyer N (2016) The relationship between the tourism sector and local economic development (Led): the case of the Vaal Triangle region. South Afr J Environ Manag Tour 3(15):466–472

Min CK, Roh TS, Bak S (2016) Growth effects of leisure tourism and the level of economic development. Appl Econ 48(1):7–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2015.1073838

Nonthapot S (2014) The relationship between tourism and economic development in the Greater Mekong Subregion: panel cointegration and Granger causality. J Adv Res Law Econ 1(9):44–51

OECD (2010) Tourism trends & policies 2010. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

Ohlan R (2017) The relationship between tourism, financial development and economic growth in India. Future Bus J 3(1):9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2017.01.003

Ömer Y, Muhammet D, Kerem K (2018) The effects of international tourism receipts on economic growth: evidence from the first 20 highest income earning countries from tourism in the world (1996–2016). Montenegrin J Econ 14(3):55–71

Pesaran MH (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No: 0435. Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge

Pesaran MH (2006) Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica 74(4):967–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econ 22:265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951

Pulido-Fernández JI, Cárdenas-García PJ (2021) Analyzing the bidirectional relationship between tourism growth and economic development. J Travel Res 60(3):583–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520922316

Ridderstaat J, Croes R, Nijkamp P (2016) The tourism development–quality of life nexus in a small island destination. J Travel Res 55(1):79–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514532372

Rivera MA (2017) The synergies between human development, economic growth, and tourism within a developing country: an empirical model for Ecuador. J Destination Mark Manag 6:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.04.002

Rosselló-Nadal J, He J (2020) Tourist arrivals versus tourist expenditures in modelling tourism demand. Tour Econ 26(8):1311–1326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816619867810

Sajith GG, Malathi K (2020) Applicability of human development index for measuring economic well-being: a study on GDP and HDI indicators from Indian context. Indian Econom J 68(4):554–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019466221998620

Sharma M, Mohapatra G, Giri AK (2020) Beyond growth: does tourism promote human development in India? Evidence from time series analysis. J Asian Financ Econ Bus 7(12):693–702

Sharpley R, Telfer D (2015) Tourism and development: concepts and issues. Routledge, New York

Sindiga I (1999) Tourism and African development: change and challenge of tourism in Kenya. Ashgate, Leiden

Song H, Wu DC (2021) A critique of tourism-led economic growth studies. J Travel Res 61(4):719–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728752110185

Tan YT, Gan PT, Hussin MYM, Ramli N (2019) The relationship between human development, tourism and economic growth: evidence from Malaysia. Res World Econ 10(5):96–103. https://doi.org/10.5430/rwe.v10n5p96

Tang C, Abosedra S (2016) Does tourism expansion effectively spur economic growth in Morocco and Tunisia? Evidence from time series and panel data. J Policy Res Tour Leis Events 8(2):127–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2015.1113980

Todaro MP, Smith SC (2020) Economic development. 13th Edition. Boston: Addison Wesley

Ulrich G, Ceddia MG, Leonard D, Tröster B (2018) Contribution of international ecotourism to comprehensive economic development and convergence in the Central American and Caribbean region. Appl Econ 50(33):3614–3629. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2018.1430339

UNCTAD (2011) Fourth United Nations Conference on least developed countries. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

UNDP (1990) Human Development Report 1990. Concept and measurement of human development.United Nations Development Programme, NY

UNDP (2023) Human Development Reports 2021/2022.United Nations Development Programme, NY

UNWTO (1980) Manila Declaration on World Tourism. United Nations World Tourism Organization, Madrid

UNWTO (2020) World Tourism Barometer. January 2020. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), Madrid

UNWTO (2022) World Tourism Barometer. January 2022. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), Madrid

UNWTO (2023) UNWTO Tourism Data Dashboard. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), Madrid

Wahyuningsih D, Yunaningsih A, Priadana MS, Wijaya A, Darma DC, Amalia S (2020) The dynamics of economic growth and development inequality in Borneo Island, Indonesia. J Appl Econom Sci 1(67):135–143. https://doi.org/10.14505/jaes.v15.1(67).12

World Bank (2023) World Bank Open Data. World Bank, Washington DC

Xia W, Doğan B, Shahzad U, Adedoyin FF, Popoola A, Bashir MA (2021) An empirical investigation of tourism-led growth hypothesis in the European countries: evidence from augmented mean group estimator. Port Econom J 21(2):239–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10258-021-00193-9

Yazdi SK (2019) Structural breaks, international tourism development and economic growth. Econom Res 32(1):1765–1776. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1638279

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics, University of Jaén, Campus Las Lagunillas s/n, 23071, Jaén, Spain

Pablo Juan Cárdenas-García

GIDE, Faculty of Economics, Universidad de la República, Gonzalo Ramirez 1926, 11200, Montevideo, Uruguay

Juan Gabriel Brida & Verónica Segarra

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Author 1: conceptualization, funding acquisition, investigation, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, writing original draft, writing review & editing. Author 2: conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, validation, visualization. Author 3: data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, resources, software, validation, writing original draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pablo Juan Cárdenas-García .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Researchdata-tourism+hdi, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cárdenas-García, P.J., Brida, J.G. & Segarra, V. Modeling the link between tourism and economic development: evidence from homogeneous panels of countries. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 308 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02826-8

Download citation

Received : 03 September 2023

Accepted : 13 February 2024

Published : 24 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02826-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Search ITA Search

September 2023 Total International Travel Volume

September 2023 total international travel volume to and from the united states.

—In September 2023, International Visitor Arrivals to the United States Totaled 5,775,143, an Increase of 19.3% Compared to September 2022

—U.S. Citizen Outbound Travel Departures from the United States Totaled 8,004,891 in September 2023, an Increase of 16.7% Compared to September 2022

Data recently released by the National Travel and Tourism Office (NTTO) show that in September 2023 :

International Arrivals to the United States

• Total non-U.S. resident international visitor volume to the United States in September 2023 was 5,775,143, an increase of 19.3% compared to September 2022 and reached 86.2% of the pre-COVID total visitor volume reported for the same month in 2019, unchanged from the prior month.   
• September 2023 was the 30th consecutive month that total non-U.S. resident international arrivals to the United States increased year-over-year (YOY).   
• Of the top 20 tourist generating countries to the United States, none reported a decrease in visitor volume from September 2022.   
• Of the top 20 tourist generating countries to the United States in 2019, India (136% of September 2019 visitation) was the most-recovered in September 2023 while China (48% of September 2019 visitation) was the least-recovered.   
• The largest number of international visitor arrivals in September 2023 was from Canada (1,548,692), followed by Mexico (1,297,133), the United Kingdom (357,125), Germany (201,204) and Japan (173,117). Combined, these top 5 source markets accounted for 61.9% of total international arrivals.

International Departures from the United States

• Total U.S. citizen international visitor departures from the United States in September 2023 were 8,004,891, an increase of 16.7% compared to September 2022 and were 105.4% of total departures in pre-pandemic September 2019.   
• September 2023 was the 30th consecutive month that total U.S. citizen international visitor departures from the United States increased on a YOY basis.   
• September 2023 year-to-date (YTD) total U.S. citizen international visitor departures from the United States totaled 74,147,152, a YOY increase of 25.6%. The YTD market share for North America (Mexico & Canada) was 49.6% and overseas was 50.4%.   
• Mexico recorded the largest outbound visitor volume of 2,641,245 (33.0% of total departures for September and 36% year-to-date (YTD)). Canada recorded a YOY increase of 24.8%.   
• Combined YTD, Mexico (26,659,378) and the Caribbean (8,196,123) accounted for 47% of total U.S. citizen international visitor departures, down 0.8% percentage points from August 2023.   
• Europe was the second largest market for outbound U.S. visitors with 2,212,385 departures. This accounted for 27.6% of all departures in September and 21.3% year-to-date (YTD). Outbound visitation to Europe in September 2023 increased 18.3% compared to September 2022.

Want to view interactive data visualization of these statistics? Please visit our ADIS/I-94 Visitor Arrivals Monitor ( Country of Residence ) and ( Country of Citizenship ) and our  I-92/APIS International Air Passenger Monitor for a more comprehensive and customizable experience!

ADIS/I-94 Visitor Arrivals

I-92/APIS International Air Passengers  

The ADIS/I-94 Visitor Arrivals Program, in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), provides a count of visitor arrivals (Overseas+Canada+Mexico) to the United States (with stays of 1-night or more and visiting under certain visa types) and is used to calculate U.S. travel and tourism exports. Visit the ADIS/I-94 Visitor Arrivals Program home page for more information on U.S. visitor arrivals. The APIS/I-92 Program provides information on non-stop international air traffic between the United States and other countries. The data has been collected from the Department of Homeland Security - Customs and Border Protection’s Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) since July 2010. The APIS based “I-92” system provides air traffic data on the following parameters: number of passengers, by country, airport, scheduled or chartered, U.S. Flag, foreign flag, citizens and non-citizens. Visit the APIS/I-92 Data Program home page for more information on airline travel to and from the United States.  

The 10 countries where the most jobs depend on travel and tourism

• International tourism is taking a major hit  amid rising concerns about the novel coronavirus, but the industry doesn't affect every country's economy in the same way.
• According to a report from visa assistance firm official-esta.com , India creates 172 jobs for every 100 tourists, while Libya creates 68.
• While tourism can be an effective way for developing nations to spur economic growth, the industry can lead to environmental damage and crowd out sectors that could offer more sustainable employment, Foreign Policy reported.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories .

Airlines are grounding flights , hundreds of hotels are temporarily closing their doors, and countries across the globe are instituting travel bans as the novel coronavirus spreads.

For countries that rely on international visitors to create jobs, the virus could be just as bad for the economy as it is for public health. While 100 tourists scarcely change the South Korean job market ( 2 jobs ), that same number of visitors creates 944 jobs in Bangladesh, according to data from Knoema and The World Bank analyzed by visa assistance firm official-esta.com .

While tourism can be an effective way to spur economic growth in developing nations, especially on islands with few natural resources, the industry can lead to environmental damage and crowd out sectors with longer-term prospects, Foreign Policy's Geert Vansintjan reported.

The virus, which has been traced to a market in Wuhan, China, has infected 89,000 people and killed more than 3,000 people around the world. Many cases have been linked to China, but people have fallen ill on every continent except Antarctica.

Here, ranked in ascending order, is a look at the ten countries that create the most jobs per 100 visitors, according to data from Knoema and The World Bank analyzed by official-esta.com . Data for each country is from the most recent year available. Tourism as a percentage of each country's GDP reflects 2018 statistics, the most recent for which data is available from Knoema .

10. Nigeria

Number of jobs created per 100 visitors : 66

Number of tourist arrivals in 2016 : 5,265,000 ( The World Bank )

Tourism as a percentage of GDP : 5% ( Knoema )

Number of jobs created per 100 visitors : 68

Number of tourist arrivals in 2003 : 142,000 ( The World Bank )

Tourism as a percentage of GDP : 3.3% ( Knoema )

Number of jobs created per 100 visitors : 77

Number of tourist arrivals in 2017 : 99,000 ( The World Bank )

7. The Philippines

Number of jobs created per 100 visitors : 83

Number of tourist arrivals in 2017 : 6,621,000 ( The World Bank )

Tourism as a percentage of GDP : 24.7% ( Knoema )

6. Madagascar

Number of jobs created per 100 visitors : 93

Number of tourist arrivals in 2018 : 291,000 ( The World Bank )

Tourism as a percentage of GDP : 15.7% ( Knoema )

5. Ethiopia

Number of jobs created per 100 visitors : 99

Number of tourist arrivals in 2017 : 933,000 ( The World Bank )

Tourism as a percentage of GDP : 9.4% ( Knoema )

4. Venezuela

Number of jobs created per 100 visitors : 101

Number of tourist arrivals in 2017 : 427,000 ( The World Bank )

Tourism as a percentage of GDP : 9.7% ( Knoema )

3. Pakistan

Number of jobs created per 100 visitors : 154

Number of tourist arrivals in 2012 : 966,000 ( The World Bank )

Tourism as a percentage of GDP : 7.1% ( Knoema )

Number of jobs created per 100 visitors : 172

Number of tourist arrivals in 2017 : 15,543,000 ( The World Bank )

Tourism as a percentage of GDP : 9.2% ( Knoema )

1. Bangladesh

Number of jobs created per 100 visitors : 944

Number of tourist arrivals in 2017 : 1,026,000 ( The World Bank )

Tourism as a percentage of GDP : 4.4% ( Knoema )

• Main content

UN Tourism | Bringing the world closer

Share this content.

• Share this article on facebook
• Share this article on twitter
• Share this article on linkedin

A compilation of data on tourism flows between source markets and destinations, powered by Telefonica

Tourism Flows – Source markets and Destinations - Project powered by Telefónica

In order to better understand tourism flows between source markets and destinations, the World Tourism Organization  (UNWTO) together with Telefonica has launched a dashboard on Source markets and destinations.

The dashboard includes data on:

• Arrivals and overnight stays by source market
• Top 10 destinations by source market
• Arrivals and overnight stays by destinations
• Top 10 source markets by destination

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Americans who have traveled internationally stand out in their views and knowledge of foreign affairs

Do people who travel think differently about the world? A new Pew Research Center survey suggests they do.

Americans who have traveled internationally are more interested in and knowledgeable about foreign affairs, feel closer to others around the world, and favor a more active foreign policy, according to the survey of 3,576 U.S. adults conducted in spring 2023. We also surveyed people in 23 other countries about their international travel habits.

This analysis examines international travel with a focus on Americans’ travel, including which Americans travel abroad and how their interest in the world and views of international affairs differ from others.

For this analysis, we surveyed 3,576 U.S. adults from March 20 to March 26, 2023; 3,581 U.S. adults from March 21 to March 27, 2022; and 10,606 U.S. adults from June 14 to June 27, 2021. Everyone who took part in these surveys is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

For non-U.S. data, this report draws on nationally representative surveys of 27,285 adults conducted from Feb. 20 to May 22, 2023. All surveys were conducted over the phone with adults in Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Surveys were conducted face-to-face in Hungary, Poland, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. In Australia, we used a mixed-mode probability-based online panel.

Here are the June 2021 survey questions and responses used in this analysis. Those for the March 2022 survey may be found here , as well as those for the March 2023 survey .

How many Americans have traveled internationally?

Roughly three-quarters of Americans (76%) have visited at least one other country, including 26% who have been to five or more. About a quarter (23%) have not traveled internationally, though most in this group say they would if they had the opportunity.

Related:  How experience with international travel varies across 24 countries

To analyze how Americans’ travel experiences relate to their attitudes on other questions, we placed people into three categories:

• Globe-trotters have traveled to at least five other countries. About a quarter of the U.S. public (26%) falls into this category.
• Casual travelers have traveled to between one and four other countries. Half of Americans fall into this category.
• Nontravelers have never left the United States. This category includes 23% of Americans.

Compared with Americans, people in many European nations are more likely to have traveled to five or more other countries. For instance, 88% of Swedes have done so.

However, international travel is much less common in many middle-income nations. It is strongly correlated with a nation’s gross domestic product per capita. (For more on international travel and views about global engagement, read “Attitudes on an Interconnected World.” )

Who travels internationally?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, older people are more likely than younger people to have traveled internationally. Americans ages 65 and older are more than twice as likely as adults under 30 to fall into our globe-trotter category (37% vs. 17%).

Income is even more strongly related to travel than age. Two-thirds of upper-income Americans have traveled to at least five countries, compared with 9% of Americans with lower incomes.

Similarly, Americans with a postgraduate degree are far more likely to be globe-trotters than those with a high school education or less (59% vs. 10%).

Residents of suburban and urban areas generally have more international travel experience than people who live in rural areas.

There are no significant partisan differences when it comes to international travel: 26% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents qualify as globe-trotters, as do 28% of Republicans and GOP leaners.

Do travelers know more about the world?

Globe-trotters are especially likely to say they are interested in foreign affairs and follow international news. Casual travelers, in turn, are more likely than nontravelers to do so.

Globe-trotters are also the most knowledgeable about international affairs. In 2022, we conducted an international affairs quiz , asking Americans 12 questions related to international news. On average, globe-trotters got 8.2 of the 12 questions correct, compared with 6.4 for casual travelers and 4.2 for nontravelers.

Is international travel related to views of global engagement?

International travel experience is also linked to Americans’ views about international affairs and their feelings of connection to other people around the world.

When asked which comes closest to their view, 57% of globe-trotters say the U.S. should be active in world affairs, while 43% say the U.S. should pay less attention to problems in other countries and concentrate on problems at home. In contrast, most casual travelers and nontravelers say the U.S. should focus on problems at home.

In all three groups, at least half of respondents say that when the U.S. is making foreign policy, it should take other countries’ interests into account – even if that means making compromises. But globe-trotters are especially likely to hold that view.

Globe-trotters are also particularly likely to say they feel close to people around the world, with 42% saying so. By comparison, 34% of casual travelers and 30% of nontravelers say this.

• International Affairs

Richard Wike is director of global attitudes research at Pew Research Center

Janell Fetterolf is a senior researcher focusing on global attitudes at Pew Research Center

Fewer Americans view the United Nations favorably than in 2023

What are americans’ top foreign policy priorities, rising numbers of americans say jews and muslims face a lot of discrimination, younger americans stand out in their views of the israel-hamas war, how u.s. muslims are experiencing the israel-hamas war, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy