See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333471757

Elite governance of agritourism in the Philippines

Article in Journal of Sustainable Tourism · May 2019

DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2019.1621327

CITATIONS READS

16 4,145

2 authors:

Marvin Joseph Fonacier Montefrio Harng Luh Sin

Yale-NUS College Sun Yat-Sen University
37 PUBLICATIONS 778 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 888 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Critical Tourism Studies View project

Sociology of food and agriculture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Harng Luh Sin on 12 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

ISSN: 0966-9582 (Print) 1747-7646 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Elite governance of agritourism in the Philippines

Marvin Joseph Fonacier Montefrio & Harng Luh Sin

To cite this article: Marvin Joseph Fonacier Montefrio & Harng Luh Sin (2019) Elite governance
of agritourism in the Philippines, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27:9, 1338-1354, DOI:
10.1080/09669582.2019.1621327

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1621327

Published online: 28 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 54

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsus20
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
2019, VOL. 27, NO. 9, 1338–1354
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1621327

Elite governance of agritourism in the Philippines

Marvin Joseph Fonacier Montefrioa and Harng Luh Sinb
a
Yale-NUS College, Singapore; bSchool of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-sen University, China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Agritourism, particularly in the West, is imagined to be an organic Received 10 January 2019
assembly of family farms driven by urban middle class demand for new Accepted 15 May 2019
rural tourism experiences. In the developing world, it is increasingly
KEYWORDS
advocated as a rural development tool with the promise of uplifting the
Agritourism; farm tourism;
lives of small farmers in sustainable ways. We challenge the assumption patronage politics; tourism
of the farm family at the helm of agritourism development, advocating governance; the Philippines
instead for a more complex understanding of agritourism governance.
We argue that agritourism involves multisectoral governance networks
that are subject to the political economic realities of where these net-
works are situated. Thus, agritourism may endure the same social
inequalities one would find in other rural development initiatives in the
Global South. Agritourism in the Philippines is a case in point. Based on
qualitative research, our findings show that agritourism in the
Philippines is driven by a complex elite network involving state and pri-
vate entities that are engaged in patronage politics. The uneven power
dynamics associated with this governance arrangement create condi-
tions that favor old and new landed elites and exclude marginalized
small farmers, contradicting any official statement that promises inclu-
sive rural development.

Introduction
Rural tourism has served as a vital alternative to the concurrent issues of rural impoverishment
and the need to provide new tourism possibilities beyond the sun, sea, and sand resorts that
have dominated post-world war two tourism.1 Scholars and advocates have promoted rural tour-
ism as a means to diversify the rural economy and address the issues of declining small farm
incomes and erosion of rural cultures brought about by agricultural modernization (Brown, 1996;
Deville, Wearing, & McDonald, 2016; McGehee, 2007; Sharpley, 2007; Verbole, 2000). As a form of
rural tourism, agritourism2 – “rural enterprises which incorporate both a working farm environ-
ment and a commercial tourism component” (Weaver & Fennell, 1997, p. 357) – is believed to be
capable of providing rural sector gains that include, among others, income diversification, rural
infrastructure development, enhanced rural production, training and skilling of rural populations,
keeping of farmers on the land, protection of rural landscapes, promotion of sustainable food
production, public education, increased opportunities for women and other under-represented
groups, and other sociocultural benefits (Busby & Rendle, 2000; Kline, Barbieri, & LaPan, 2016;
McGehee, 2007; Nickerson, Black, & McCool, 2001; Tew & Barbieri, 2012). Moreover, agritourism’s
association with the growth of alternative tourism (Weaver, 1991) and sustainable tourism (for

CONTACT Marvin Joseph Fonacier Montefrio marvin.montefrio@yale-nus.edu.sg Yale-NUS College, 16 College Avenue
West, Singapore.
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1339

key initial pieces, see Cohen, 1987; Pearce, 1987) reflects efforts to incorporate social and envir-
onmental responsibilities in tourism development. Although the links between sustainability and
agritourism have been challenged in subsequent works including that of Barbieri (2013), agri-
tourism’s perceived value and potential to contribute to the sustainable development of tourism,
as reflected in more recent scholarly works, remain largely positive (e.g. Deville et al., 2016; Kline
et al., 2016; Lupi, Giaccio, Mastronardi, Giannelli, & Scardera, 2017).
The case of agritourism in the Philippines, however, points to a different direction. Our
research shows that rather than fulfilling the equitable and inclusive development goals that it
promises, the Philippine variant of agritourism has emerged to become susceptible to patronage
politics that favors old and new landed elites and exclude underprivileged small farmers. Our
findings underscore the need to challenge the normative assumptions surrounding the litera-
tures on agritourism and farm tourism. While studies on agritourism – which are largely set in
the Western contexts – have typically centered on the marginalized but entrepreneurial small
farm family (see, e.g., Bowler, Clark, Crockett, Ilbery, & Shaw, 1996; Davies & Gilbert, 1992;
McGehee & Kim, 2004; McGehee, 2007), we highlight in this paper the roles of other agents and
the complexities of governance and politics in agritourism development, particularly in the
developing world. We posit that in most cases, agritourism governance is mired in state-private
sector politics that are often molded by historical and contemporary rural political economies
where these tourism development initiatives are situated. A closer examination of power further
elucidates how governance networks in agritourism are dominated by particular actors, such as
the landed elites in the case of the Philippines. Attention to politics of tourism governance, we
argue, provides a critical lens to understanding the rural development and sustainability implica-
tions of agritourism as it unfolds in actuality.
In the next section, we lay out the literature on agritourism and tourism governance and pol-
itics. This is followed by a discussion on our research methods and a brief background of the
Philippine agrarian political economy and governance politics. Our results and discussion detail
the case of agritourism in the Philippines, its emergence, and how its governance has unfolded
to follow neoliberal patronage politics in the country. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of
our contribution to the agritourism literature and the implications of our findings on the sustain-
ability of agritourism.

Rethinking agritourism: tourism governance and politics

The literature on agritourism and farm tourism has largely portrayed this tourism enterprise as
bottom-up, organic, and primarily driven by small-scale, independent farm families (see, e.g.,
Bowler et al., 1996; Che, Veeck, & Veeck, 2005; Davies & Gilbert, 1992; Lane & Kastenholz, 2015;
Weaver & Fennell, 1997). The discussions toward the limitations in developing agritourism – such
as the lack of access to marketing and management resources, and the motivations for providers
to enter the agritourism industry (Busby & Rendle, 2000; Cawley, Gillmor, Leavy, & McDonagh,
1995; Che et al., 2005; Getz & Carlsen, 2000; McGehee & Kim, 2004; Nickerson et al., 2001;
Weaver & Fennell, 1997) – are all premised upon the underlying assumption that the agritourism
provider is the normative farm family. Another key assumption in agritourism is that it is driven
by touristic demand for an authentic experience in the rural idyllic that the normative farm fam-
ily represents. This demand has grown substantially over the last two decades due to changing
market demands linked to, among others, concerns relating to physical and mental wellbeing,
aversion to mass tourism destinations, a longing for the older ways of life, and a desire for
experiential enjoyment beyond sightseeing activities and landscape appreciation (Cawley, 2009;
Jepson & Sharpley, 2015; Lane & Kastenholz, 2015, p. 1135).
There is a need to recognize that agritourism is not just about its fragmented small family
farms and its urban middle class tourists. Very few scholars studying agritourism have
1340 M. J. F. MONTEFRIO AND H. L. SIN

acknowledged this actuality (see, e.g., Sonnino, 2004 on the case of large family farms in
Tuscany; Srisomyong & Meyer, 2015 on the role of state organizations in Thailand’s agritourism).
Such a rethinking of agritourism is not farfetched, given that scholars have documented govern-
ments’ intervention in the development of rural tourism, albeit in varying ways depending on
the geography of concern (Hall & Jenkins, 1998). Governmental bodies play crucial functions,
such as designing and implementing legislations to promote and regulate tourism, planning and
coordinating tourism programs, and stimulating tourism development and growth (Hall, 1994). In
most, if not all cases, tourism governance is understood as complex networks involving state
entities and non-state actors such as communities, voluntary sectors, and the market (Bramwell
& Lane, 2012). The relative emphasis on the roles of state and private actors, as well as whether
the approach of direction is hierarchical or not, result in various modalities of tourism govern-
ance, from hierarchies (top-down regulation by nation states and supranational institutions) and
markets (privatized tourism functions), to networks (public-private partnerships) and communities
(localized bottom-up approaches) (Hall, 2011). Depending on the context agritourism then could
take the form of any of these modalities, but certainly not just entirely driven by farmers and
the market.
Agritourism, just as any other tourism enterprise, is therefore susceptible to the kinds of polit-
ics associated with complicated networks of state- and non-state actors. First, tourism govern-
ance is shaped by social and political economic contexts by which they are situated (Burns &
Novelli, 2007). For instance, as part of commitments to neoliberalism beginning the 1980s, tour-
ism functions that used to be in state jurisdiction have increasingly been privatized and busi-
nesses have gained greater influence over tourism policy (Dredge & Jenkins, 2011). Second,
decisions affecting tourism development are highly political. The policy process, for instance,
involves competing preferences, positions, interests, and beliefs among various stakeholders who
have differing access to resources. Those who are in positions of power – e.g. individuals and
groups that have access to economic and social capitals and political legitimacy – have more
influence over the design and implementation of policies and programs. Indeed, the influence of
elites exist across modalities of tourism governance, even in networks (Dredge, 2006; Hall, 1999)
and decentralized systems such as community-based tourism (Richter, 2007).
It is then innate in the study of tourism governance and politics to examine power dynamics
(Hall, 1994). Although power in general features quite extensively in tourism research, “tourism
analysis has become only selectively linked with established and emergent discourses of power”
(Church & Coles, 2007a, p. 3). Church and Coles (2007b) then urge tourism scholars to draw from
existing power theories, as they provide conceptual directions as to how we make sense of the
interactions between tourism and wider social and political economic processes. There is a volu-
minous body of scholarship on power to draw from, but a useful set of theories revolve around
the discussions on the pluralist view of power and its critics (Lukes, 2005), as in the case of the
Philippines (Montefrio, 2014), which has been applied elsewhere in tourism studies (Church &
Coles, 2007a). In the context of pluralist politics, power manifests when the interests and prefer-
ences of particular individuals and groups prevail in a conflictual decision-making process. In this
process, there are observable conflicts where one set of interests and preferences overcomes
another (Dahl, 1958). Bachrach and Baratz (1963, 1970) challenge this conception of power, argu-
ing that it can also be exercised when a person or group – consciously or unconsciously – cre-
ates or reinforces barriers that inhibit another to participate in the decision-making process, a
situation they refer to as nondecision-making. A variation of nondecision-making is non-imple-
mentation, where an individual or group simply does not enforce policy provisions (Mokken &
Stokman, 1976). Power through nondecision-making is achieved when state and non-state enti-
ties employ mobilization of bias, which is “a set of predominant values, beliefs, rituals, and insti-
tutional procedures (“rules of the game”) that operate systematically and consistently to the
benefit of certain persons and groups [often elites] at the expense of others” (Bachrach & Baratz,
1970, p. 43–44). The others’ preferences – manifesting as “overt or covert grievances” – are either
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1341

partly or wholly excluded from the political process (Lukes, 2005, p. 24).3 In the context of tour-
ism, Ioannides (1998) shows how market entities such as tour operators have become effective
power brokers and gatekeepers. State and private sector networks likewise have the propensity
to accommodate institutional arrangements that exclude and ignore some members of the com-
munity, especially those who do not have the right economic, social, and cultural capitals
(Hall, 2007).
To say that tourism development is largely biased towards elites’ control of resources and
power is perhaps nothing new. We argue in this paper however that beyond the romanticized
perception of agritourism as a means to empower the agrarian-based rural poor, there is a need
to closely examine politics and power in our understanding of governance networks in agritour-
ism. Rather than interpreting agritourism as a fragmented and organic assembly of farm families
and urban middle class tourists, we need to recognize it as constituting complex networks of
state and private entities across levels and scales that make it susceptible to elite-driven power
dynamics. Engaging established theories of power – an analytical approach that is yet to be
employed in the agritourism/farm tourism literature – enables us to elucidate the ways by which
elite networks dominate agritourism. Moreover, as Sonnino (2004) argues, agritourism initiatives
are embedded in “pre-existing inequalities in the structure of the rural economy” (p. 296). We
concur that the study of politics and power in agritourism should be carried out with thoughtful
reflection of the political economy of rural development, following Jenkins, Hall, and Troughton’s
(1998) approach to examine rural tourism within the specificities of the broader rural context
from which it is situated. We do this in our analysis of agritourism in the Philippines – a case
that has not been explored in the tourism literature – which has followed the trajectory of neo-
liberal patrimonial rural development initiative in the country. The examination of agritourism in
the Philippines can provide comparative insights into understanding similar cases where agri-
tourism is promoted as a development project.

Methods
This article is part of a larger project that examines “sustainable” agri-food systems in the
Philippines. Findings presented in this paper are based on qualitative interviews and participant
observation relevant to agritourism in the Philippines conducted between 2016 and 2018. We
conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with the following: 31 owners, managers and
farmers (representing 20 already existing tourism farms and 6 in development and planning
stages); 10 national, provincial and local government officials; and 3 representatives of tourism-
based educational institutions. Interview questions focused on the following: the development
and implementation of the farm tourism policy; farmers’ motivations for developing a farm tour-
ism site and applying for accreditation; the strategies and challenges that government officials
experience in developing and promoting farm tourism in the country and their respective areas
of jurisdiction; farmers’ general experience in developing farm tourism sites and packages; and
general views of the farm tourism policy and the emerging industry. Interviews typically lasted
between 45 and 120 minutes and were audio recorded whenever allowed by the participants.
We use pseudonyms for all the interview participants mentioned in the article.
Participant observation was carried out during relevant national conferences, exhibitions,
training seminars, and visits to agritourism sites. Extensive field notes were prepared after every
participant observation session. We use pseudonyms for our interviewees and the personalities
that appear in our fieldnotes to protect their identities. We also analyzed 142 relevant articles
from the top two broadsheets in the Philippines (Philippine Daily Inquirer and Philippine Star)
using LexisNexis Academic news search and each newspaper’s respective online databases (key-
words: farm tourism, agri-tourism, and RA 10816). Other texts (e.g. Congressional reports, com-
mittee hearing transcripts, plenary session transcripts, privilege speeches, and internal rules and
1342 M. J. F. MONTEFRIO AND H. L. SIN

regulations related to RA 10816; promotional materials; official speeches; magazine features, and
training materials) were likewise gathered and analyzed.

The Philippine context

The Philippines still maintains a sizeable rural sector. As of 2010, more than 50% of the total
population resides in areas classified as rural and more than 30% depends on agricultural liveli-
hoods.4 A significant population of the agricultural households remains to be smallholders who
grow “low-value” crops such as rice, corn, coconuts, sugarcane, and lowland vegetables in land-
holdings less than two hectares.5 Although they dominate in numbers, most smallholders con-
front high incidence of poverty, insecure land tenure, uneven market relations, and development
aggression (i.e. development activities that violate human rights). Meanwhile, old and new elite
landowners, in alliance with business interests, persistently control much of the agricultural lands,
agri-food industries, and even local and national politics. It is in these contemporary rural polit-
ical economic realities that underpin the politics of agritourism governance in the Philippines.
The contemporary rural political economy in the Philippines can be attributed to the conflu-
ence of colonial legacies and postcolonial conditions. During the Spanish colonial regime
(1521–1898), the Regalian Doctrine was introduced to allow the Spanish crown and the state to
seize all lands and natural resources under the public domain, effectively depriving local inhabi-
tants of their rights over lands (Montefrio, 2014). The forested uplands (where most indigenous
farmers reside) were designated as timberlands for forest reserves and logging concessions, while
much of the so-called productive lowlands were cleared and released as freehold to political and
religious elites for intensive agriculture (Pelzer, 1945). Indigenous farmers were labelled illegal
occupants of the uplands and many were displaced. In the lowlands, uneven landholdings were
created, as the Catholic Church and local elite Christianized families who had close relations to
the Spanish friars aggregated lands into Haciendas (expansive plantation estates that can go as
high as several tens of thousands of hectares).6 Meanwhile, many freeholders were reduced as
mere tenants, sharecroppers, and seasonal laborers in the Hacienda system (Kerkvliet, 1977). This
agrarian arrangement has created deeply seated patron-client ties between landowners and the
landless peasants (Kerkvliet, 2013).
The American colonial regime (1898–1946) adopted the Spanish Regalian Doctrine and rein-
forced uneven land relations. It sold or leased out most of the friar lands to wealthy Filipino
elites and American businesses. Moreover, the newly introduced Torrens system of land titling
was inaccessible to peasants and susceptible to local elites’ manipulation and exploitation of
cadastral laws for further appropriation of tenant lands (Aguilar, 1998; Pelzer, 1945).7 Meanwhile,
the American colonial state’s focus on building representative institutions rather than the cre-
ation of a central bureaucracy allowed the landed gentry to establish political dominance in the
country (Hutchcroft, 1998). The entry of landed elites in politics, the weak bureaucracy, and the
already entrenched patron-client relations in the agrarian system then facilitated the develop-
ment of clientelism and patronage politics in the Philippine (Doronila, 1985; Hutchcroft, 2014).
The uneven agrarian political economy has worsened in the postcolonial period. The estates
of many foreign companies were transferred to Filipino elite nationalists after independence
from the United States (Simbulan, 2005). Furthermore, landed elites gained control over much of
local government and Congress, significantly influencing rural policy and development (Doronila,
1985) and paving the way for the country’s ruling oligarchy. The oligarchic rule was temporarily
replaced with “crony capitalism” during the Marcos regime (1965–1986), where state agencies
were used to advance the interests of a few elites close to the Marcoses. During this period, cap-
italist property relations and production intensified, resulting in even more land appropriation,
dispossession among peasants and indigenous farmers, and rural impoverishment (Boyce, 1993).
Towards the end of the Marcos regime, the Philippines embarked on neoliberalization beginning
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1343

with the structural adjustments of the World Bank in the early 1980s. The neoliberal ideology
(manifesting through privatization, trade liberalization, deregulation, and export-led develop-
ment) became more entrenched in the Corazon Aquino (1986–1992) and Fidel Ramos
(1992–1998) administrations, turning the country from a net food exporter to a net importer
(Bello, 2009). Neoliberal governance in the Philippines, however, has taken the form of what
Hutchcroft (1998) refers to as booty capitalism, a state-private sector relation in a patrimonial oli-
garchic setting where “a powerful business elite class extracts privilege from a largely incoherent
bureaucracy” (p. 20). The compounded effects of the long history of uneven distribution of land
ownership, social exclusions, the rule of landed elites, a weak bureaucracy, and the neoliberal
turn have all resulted in the loss of the country’s competitiveness in agriculture in the region
(Borras, 2007).
There have been numerous attempts by the state to address the unequal distribution of land
holdings and the lagging rural sector. In the 1990s, two landmark legislations were passed to
correct centuries-old injustices in land distribution: the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP, Republic Act 6657), which aims to redistribute public and private agricultural lands to
landless peasants; and the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA, Republic Act 8371), which
endeavors indigenous peoples to reclaim ancestral lands and domains. While both policies were
heralded as progressive, critical scholars point to design and implementation issues. For instance,
both policies were watered down in Congress to serve vested interests and state-private sector
interests were allowed to evade and weaken their full implementation (Bello, 2004; Montefrio,
2014). The state has also continued its reliance on neoliberal governance, experimenting with
market-led approaches to facilitate land redistribution, such as the voluntary land transfer
scheme and the partnering of agribusinesses with agrarian beneficiary communities. Also, efforts
to modernize agriculture through neoliberal strategies, such as attracting foreign investors and
promoting public–private partnerships, have intensified (Ortega, 2018). More recent variants of
these strategies have drawn on sustainability, green economy, and inclusive growth discourses,
but nonetheless framed within the language of neoliberalism (Montefrio & Dressler, 2016) and
with the assumption that market logic can achieve sustainable and inclusive development. As
expected, old and new landed elites have taken advantage of these neoliberal programs to exert
their dominance in rural development (Borras, 2007; Montefrio, 2017). As we discuss in the next
section, we argue that such dynamics shape the country’s agritourism governance.

Results and discussion: governance of Philippine agritourism

We present our findings in four parts. First, we discuss how agritourism is currently framed as a
form of sustainable rural development initiative and how the state has played a role in this fram-
ing. We then interrogate the seeming dominance of an elite network of state-private sector enti-
ties in the governance of agritourism in the Philippines, followed by a discussion of the role that
state accreditation plays in reinforcing this network. Finally, we examine the implications of this
network in terms of agritourism’s ostensive promise of inclusive development.

Agritourism as rural development policy

Agritourism as a concept is not new in the Philippines. Consistent with how agritourism began
in the Euro-Americas, the Philippine government has documented a few cases of farms offering
accommodations and experiential activities to tourists as early as the 1990s. The state became
officially involved in agri/farm tourism when in the late 1990s/early 2000s, the market develop-
ment group of the Department of Tourism (DOT) instigated the idea of farm tourism by develop-
ing a new tourism “product” or “enterprise” that is distinct but related to ecotourism. In 2004,
DOT created the “Rules and Regulations Governing the Accreditation of Agri-tourism Farm Sites
1344 M. J. F. MONTEFRIO AND H. L. SIN

in the Philippines.” It took more than ten years before a legislation supporting agritourism – the
Farm Tourism Development Act of 2016 (Republic Act 10816) – was promulgated. RA 10816 and
its internal rules and regulations were largely framed as a rural development program and a
means to reinvigorate the country’s laggard agricultural sector. The lead author of the legislation
in the Senate of the 16th Congress of the Philippines stated that, “Farm tourism will be a major
contributor in bringing back the glory days of agriculture in our country given the potential to
increase the income of people involved in agriculture as well as to help solve the problem of
urban migration” (Senate of the Philippines, 2015). Inherent in the program is the key underlying
vision for the Philippines to become a leading agritourism destination by embarking on large-
scale development, which will be achieved with the plan of establishing one farm tourism site in
every municipality nationwide. As mentioned in the speech of the undersecretary of DOT at the
5th Farm Tourism Conference and Festival, “this will be a long term goal of DOT at the same
time a lasting legacy from all of us here who are promoting the country as a [leader in] agritour-
ism and providing income opportunities for farmers” (Ferrer, 2017). Recent statistics provided by
Rose Libongco of Hotel Sales and Marketing Association International at the Global Farm
Tourism Summit note in similarly celebratory tone that “[f]arm tourism sites have boosted
Philippines’ tourism potential as the country is now a top agri-tourism destination with foreign
visitor arrivals growing by 10.24%” (BusinessWorld, 2019).
The program is also framed as providing not just income to farmers, but also opportunities to
spur interest in agriculture through educational activities that can be offered in the agritourism
sites. As the main author of the farm tourism bill in the House of Representatives explained:
Farm tourism is supposedly to also educate as a training center to impart knowledge in agriculture. Why?
Because we have a lack of training centers for agriculture. We have less students taking up agriculture in
colleges and even in [technical and vocational schools]. So if you have a demonstration farm which can
attract tourists, at the same time, educate our farmers or the visitors on what is the proper way of
agriculture … you can teach the people in that town, show them the proper farming techniques in that
farm tourism site. (House of Representatives Committee on Tourism Transcript, 11 June 2014)

Not only is agritourism framed as an agricultural (and educational) development tool, but it is
also promoted as means to achieving the country’s sustainable development goals. The state
sees agritourism as a way to “promote environment-friendly, efficient and sustainable practices
… and promote health and wellness with high-quality farm-produced food” (RA 10816, Sec 2).
It is then unsurprising that many of the agritourism sites that the state promotes simultaneously
practice organic production. “Inclusive growth” is given much emphasis in the Philippine agri-
tourism’s sustainable development discourse, in particular how agritourism can uplift the lives of
impoverished small farmers. Such discourse is pervasive in press releases, tourism conferences,
and relevant training workshops and seminars. For example, in the general membership meeting
of the Philippine Tour Operators Association, the chairperson of one of the first accredited farm
tourism sites in the country said, “the purpose of agritourism is to alleviate the marginalized
poor farmers” (Padin, 2016). The interim head of the farm tourism program, Miguel Alonzo, was
specific in distinguishing small farmers from large agribusinesses as the target beneficiaries of
the policy. He said, “this law was actually made to help small farmers, so we are looking to find
ways for that. Farm tourism is not for DOLE or Del Monte … I think they are set (laughs). It is
the smaller farmers who will really benefit from this law” (Interview, 7 June 2018).
While agritourism did start organically in the Philippines as involving a few family-owned
farms targeting niche touristic demands, it has now evolved into a nationwide program involving
the state. There is now a legislation – RA 10816 – serving as a planning and coordinating back-
bone for agritourism initiatives in the country. The national government is then mandated to
carry out strategic planning, marketing and investment promotions, market research, information
management, training, and the management of voluntary accreditation. While the law covers a
vast array of state mandates, it operates closer to the interstices of market and network govern-
ance, as demonstrated by the following: (1) DOT does not have the authority to regulate
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1345

operations of agritourism sites through permits and licenses, nor can it provide substantial state
financing; (2) the government needs to designate a planning and development board composed
of multisectoral representatives from relevant government agencies, associations of tourism pro-
viders and tour operators, educational institutions, and farming associations; (3) development of
the market relies heavily on the role of private (or privatized) financing institutions and the
attraction of investors and agribusinesses; and (4) infrastructure support for agritourism will most
likely depend on public-private partnerships. As we discuss next, rather than being driven pri-
marily by farm families or the tourism market, the evolving network governance in Philippine
agritourism is instead entangled with the country’s patrimonial oligarchic state where patronage
politics involving state and private (landed) elites are deeply entrenched.

Emerging state-private elite network

The network governance of state and private elites is pervasive in agritourism. One indication of
this is the close association of elites – who are directly involved in the tourism business – with
the formulation and implementation of the country’s agritourism program. The main author of
the policy in the House of Representatives, for example, belongs to a powerful political family in
Western Visayas that owns two leisure resorts offering wildlife, nature, and agricultural tourism,
one of which is prominently featured in state promotion of successful agritourism sites. On the
other hand, the main author and sponsor of RA10816 in the Senate is part of a family that owns
one the largest real estate corporations in the Philippines (Ortega, 2018). The senator and her
family have established a training and tourism farm, as well as resort hotels throughout the
country (Zobroredo, 2017). Another influential member of the planning and development board
was a former cabinet member for the DOT and the founder of a private educational institution
that offers sustainable and farm tourism courses, which also benefits directly from the govern-
ment’s promotion of agritourism. This board member has built a strong network among govern-
ment officials, owners of established agritourism sites, and the tourism industry in general, and
has been instrumental in running and hosting relevant events – trainings, workshops, and con-
ferences – that allow this network to flourish.
Most of the owners of the farm tourism sites belonging to this network are old and new
landed elites. Quite a few of the owners of the farm tourism sites we interviewed either have a
political background (e.g. formerly or currently in a political position) or are related to prominent,
local political families, indicative of the blurring of lines between state and private spheres in a
patrimonial state setting (Hutchcroft, 1998). Other farm owners may not be related to local elite
political families, but they come from privileged backgrounds (e.g. retired corporate executives,
wealthy entrepreneurs, and returnees from overseas work). The agritourism enterprises that
receive the most attention and publicity, such as those in the province of Cavite, are certainly
owned by landed and business elites. As one owner of an agritourism site explained, “the num-
ber one farm tourism destination in the Philippines is [a city in Cavite]8. For you to own land in
[city in Cavite], it would be very expensive. You don’t see grassroots farmers in [city in Cavite].
They are in Nueva Ecija, in the far away provinces. [This city in Cavite] being an area of concen-
tration of popular farm tourism destinations gives you an idea of who the players are.”
Furthermore, prospective agritourism providers are from the same political, elite, and privileged
backgrounds. For example, some of the interested land owners the first author met in a farm
tourism training seminar in January 2018 include an incumbent city Mayor, a high-ranking ex-
military official, a former high-ranking official of a provincial government agency, and a business
owner in the capital city, Manila.
Patronage politics figures strongly in an agritourism program set in a patrimonial state. It is a
kind of relationship where the bureaucracy is subordinated to the particularistic interests of the
elites, as the former plays a role in the wealth accumulation of the latter (Hutchcroft, 1998).
1346 M. J. F. MONTEFRIO AND H. L. SIN

Patronage politics entails the distribution of material resources commonly derived from public
sources “for particularistic benefit for political purposes” (Hutchcroft, 2014, p. 176). In the case of
agritourism in the Philippines, the public resource flows from the bureaucracy to the private agri-
tourism providers. Although agritourism is seen as lucrative, and that most existing agritourism
sites are owned and managed by elite entrepreneurial landowners, such development/business
endeavor benefits even more from state endorsements and support. Established agritourism
sites, especially the accredited ones, are given much support by relevant bureaucracies that
endorse these enterprises to the already expansive state-private sector tourism industry network.
There are two ways the state has thus far accorded patronage benefits. First, farm tourism sites
that the state recognizes have been included in all network marketing (e.g. through tourism bro-
chures, online features, and verbal endorsements in state-sponsored events like trainings and
conferences). Moreover, the state educational agencies have urged public and private schools to
conduct field trips in these sites, part of a campaign to encourage the youth to take on an agri-
culture-based occupation in the future.
Second, the state has subsidized agritourism, but not in the sense of directly injecting public
funds in its development. The subsidy comes in the form of organizing government events like
meetings, seminars, trainings, and conferences in farm tourism sites using public funds. During
our field visits, it was evident how these government endorsements constitute the majority of
tourism activity in farm tourism sites. For example, we visited one popular site in three separate
occasions and each time there were groups of 20–30 participants from government agencies or
local government units about to leave or that had just arrived. In another agritourism site, we
made an estimate of their visitor turn out and profile based on the entries in their guestbook:
about 60% were school visitors, while more than 30% were government agencies and local gov-
ernment officials and bureaucrats. Agritourism owners admit that school visits and government
functions add significantly to their sales. As one owner, Mr Trinidad, disclosed:
Government agencies also form a big part of our market. Government pays a lot, but they pay later.
Probably a year delayed, sometimes two years even. But the contracts are pretty hefty, because they require
a lot of seminars. Everything, DOH, DSWD, DENR, DEPED, local government units, they all have their
programs that would require them to go to a place where there is a function room. 30-40 per cent of our
sales would come from functions, and maybe 60 percent of that would be from government agencies.
Because we’ve become patrons (kasi suki na kami) and now we are part of the procurement system of the
government. Once you’re in the system, it is easy to be identified, and at the same time if you are good
with the engagements already, sometimes they call you up to invite you to bid. If it is not a bid, then
sometimes they’ve already chosen you. (Interview, 24 May 2018)

Notably, the long delays in payments from government agencies also mean that only well-
resourced agritourism owners can benefit from such schemes – they need to invest in building
up their agritourism sites and also pay for the costs to provide these services upfront, long
before collecting the payments. When asked what it takes to be part of the system, Mr
Trinidad said,
Referrals. We have friends in politics. We have friends in government … so that’s how most resorts have
survived here. If you’ve heard of [a resort in the province], there’s nothing special about that place, but they
really invested in a thousand seater function room. The rooms are not nice, but it can fit a thousand
people. They really make a lot of money by catering to these government events. That’s the game we are
playing here. So really, it’s patronage. (Interview, 24 May 2018)

The government support extends to other nodes in the farm tourism industry. For instance, in
a training seminar organized by a private educational institution focusing on sustainable tourism,
we observed at least 50% of the participants were from the provincial or local governments and
about 20% from state colleges and universities. Accredited tour operators also benefit from the
endorsements, as schools and government agencies would need to engage an accredited tour
operator to arrange the farm tourism package for these organizations.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1347

In exchange, relevant state agencies benefit from having patronage relations with the private
tourism enterprises. State agencies, for example, enjoy significant discounts by engaging particu-
lar patrons in the private sector. Furthermore, having more successful cases of agritourism enter-
prises justify the existence of the policy and affirm the performance of the state institutions that
run the program. We observed a sense of urgency on the side of DOT to get certain program-
matic targets achieved. For instance, several farm owners we interviewed in Western Visayas
claimed that DOT officials insisted on bringing established agritourism site owners together and
elect a representative in the region on short notice. A tourism officer of a major city in southern
Philippines, Ms Regidor, also shared that DOT wanted preset agritourism plans to be imple-
mented and particular farms accredited in their locality right away. She recalled, “so DOT came
to us to discuss tourism plans. I was called and then they said ‘this is what we are going to do
since your province is known for [a particular food product]’ [ … ] it’s like everything’s all set,
right? So I asked them, are you here to discuss with us or are you asking us to implement a pro-
gram that is already made. They answered, ‘yes, we need help because we need to launch it on
this date’” (interview, 2 March 2018). Since it is easier to transition already established farms –
which in most cases are owned by elite individuals and families – to become agritourism sites,
there is a tendency for DOT to focus on them. The quicker agritourism sites are established and
accredited, the more programmatic achievements are recognized in favor of the state agency.
However the benefits flow in the network and in whatever form they manifest, the accredit-
ation system serves as a critical instrument in controlling who and how they benefit from agri-
tourism. We discuss the politics of accreditation next.

Inclusions/exclusions through accreditation

The main directive of accreditation in agritourism is to assure a particular quality standard for
tourism sites that claim to offer agritourism-related activities and services. This, according to DOT
officials, makes an agritourism site competitive not just domestically, but also globally. The cur-
rent standards used were primarily defined by the tourism industry, paying attention to the
existence of management practices and amenities that particularly guarantee the comfort and
safety of tourists. For example, the standards require specific facilities – such as a welcome
reception/information area, restrooms and wash areas, a souvenir shop, parking, and accommo-
dations and a restaurant (if the site is being accredited for farm stay) – and support personnel –
such as farm guides and security guards. While accreditation is voluntary and does not function
as a formal regulatory instrument that accords the state authority to prohibit an agritourism site
from operating, it does have the power to include and exclude – a gatekeeping feature instru-
mental in patronage politics and in sustaining the state-private elite network. There are two
main ways that inclusions/exclusions take place in the accreditation system:
First, the accreditation process itself self-selects farmers with a particular socio-economic back-
ground right at the outset. While the accreditation fee itself is inexpensive, the requirements
needed to attain the accreditation demand significant economic resource. Small farmers are
often dissuaded to pursue agritourism after hearing the hefty accreditation requirements of DOT.
City tourism officer, Ms Regidor, recounted how their small farmers decided to no longer pursue
DOT accreditation. She recalled, “so [DOT officials] went to the farms in our city, but when they
got there they were telling the owners, ‘Oh, you need to put up a restaurant, you need to con-
struct a receiving area, you need restrooms here and there,’ so our farmers got so overwhelmed”
(interview, 2 March 2018). Even the privileged farmers we interviewed were also wary of how
capital intensive it is to transition their properties into agritourism sites. After all, the civil works
associated with the construction of amenities are indeed expected to entail enormous capital
outlay. Some of the elite farmers we interviewed admitted that they had to introduce amenities
at a gradual pace.
1348 M. J. F. MONTEFRIO AND H. L. SIN

Second, accreditation gatekeeps the particularistic benefits associated with patronage politics.
It is only by being accredited that a tourism enterprise can enjoy the benefits that the state and
its network provide. Ms Fuentes, an official at DOT, framed accreditation as an incentive, say-
ing that,
[The agritourism enterprise’s] network will expand and that they can engage more with others [in the
industry]. It works for the accredited farms well, because there are so many accredited travel and tour
agencies that they can partner with. If you have that kind of network, you will no longer have a hard time
inviting tourists to your farm. (Interview, 13 June 2018)

In most cases, however, accreditation is framed in terms of disincentives and its capacity to
exclude. Mr Alonzo explained that,
If you’re not accredited, then DOT can’t work with you. We can’t include you in the programs, and also the
possible loan packages. Also, we can’t include you in promotions and the tour packages. The accredited
tour operators cannot include you in their itinerary. You’re outside the loop, basically. (Interview, 7
June 2018)

Agritourism enterprises recognize these disincentives in their decision to work towards obtain-
ing accreditation. Mr Agoncillo, a young highly educated entrepreneur who is taking over his
father’s agritourism business, talked about why they need to get accreditation. He said,
“something we realized, by not being accredited we are somehow losing out of being part of
these tours. I believe that if I [were] a farm tourist, where else would I go to if I want a brochure
of destinations other than DOT? Ideally that’s how it works” (interview, 18 July 2018).
Gatekeeping is further reinforced through administrative-level mandates that encourage
mutualistic relations among co-accredited entities. Ms Fuentes disclosed that DOT requires the
tourism enterprises it accredits to only engage with a fellow-accredited. She said, “we impose to
[accredited tourism enterprises] that they should just be dealing amongst each other” (Interview,
13 June 2018). This rule has extended to state dealings as well. A number of government agen-
cies now require all government-related events (e.g. team building, meetings, planning work-
shops, conferences) to be held in accredited tourism sites and through accredited tourism
agents. DOT has even urged the President’s office to prepare an executive order that will require
all local and national government units to deal and transact with just accredited tourism enter-
prises. Ms Fuentes believes that government engagement has thus far contributed to the rise in
accreditation numbers. She said, “more tourism enterprises eventually applied for accreditation,
after learning that government agencies now require accreditation” (Interview, 13 June 2018).
Particularistic benefits are not limited to access to markets. Accreditation also provides accred-
ited agritourism enterprises with the privilege of being the first to be consulted by DOT on any-
thing related to agritourism governance. A case in point is the revising of the agritourism
accreditation system. DOT has been in the process of consulting stakeholders on the new stand-
ards for accreditation and it appears that accredited enterprises obtain preferential treatment. In
explaining their procedure in selecting participants for the consultation sessions, Ms
Fuentes said:
We make the regional offices identify who the stakeholders are, but our priority really are the accredited
enterprises. After all of them have been invited, that’s the only time we tap others who are not accredited
but interested in joining the consultation, like farmer’s associations or those who are just planning to put
up a farm tourism site. First really are the accredited ones—that’s one of their incentives. (Interview, 13
July 2018)

In sum, the accreditation system functions as an instrument of mobilization of bias that sys-
tematically benefits members of the state-private elite network, particularly more privileged farm-
ers and tourism entrepreneurs. This system then limits the possibilities for underprivileged
farmers to access the benefits associated with the dominant governance network, as well as
restricts other modalities of governance such as cooperative-based agritourism to develop.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1349

The powers of exclusion

The accreditation system facilitates the exercise of Bachrach and Baratz’s (1970) power through
nondecision-making, creating a barrier that prevents small farmers with limited capitals from
receiving the material benefits of patronage politics and influencing policy development to their
favor. Based on our observations, the current accreditation system (and the agritourism program
as a whole) has largely excluded the interests of underprivileged small farmers. The revised
accreditation system is likewise not looking good for this marginalized group, as DOT officials
alluded to more demanding requirements.
We clarify that discourses on small farmers are not completely absent. After all, the agritour-
ism policy is premised on inclusive growth as one of the main development goals, at least rhet-
orically. Government officials and bureaucrats acknowledge this goal. For example, Mr Alonzo is
aware that the welfare of small farmers should be taken into consideration in the development
and planning of agritourism. One strategy he mentioned was to engage with cooperatives of
small farmers. He said, “we are looking into the cooperative route. We will encourage them to
form cooperatives. We also have [the Bureau of Small and Medium Enterprises] and the national
cooperative association involved as part of the board … we know some of them are really small
scale, so they will probably not be able to afford this” (Interview, 7 June 2018).
However, clearly this plan has yet to materialize. When asked whether there are already exist-
ing cooperatives involved in farm tourism, Mr Alonzo admitted: “based on the list of accredited
farms, there are farm tourism associations, but these are private entities. In terms of the coopera-
tives, through the Cooperative Development Authority, not yet. We don’t have a model for that
yet.” (Interview, 7 June 2018). While there is the intention, it is clear that the bureaucracy is not
providing enough attention to shape the agritourism program and its institutions to ensure the
inclusion of small farmers as promised in RA 10816, at least not in the same level as it empha-
sizes accreditation and elite network formation. In this sense, it is not just the power of nondeci-
sion-making that is in effect, but also non-implementation (Mokken & Stokman, 1976).
Although DOT may not have a record of cooperative-based agritourism sites, we observe that
there are small farming cooperatives currently operating as agritourism sites or in the process of
being organized as such. We have encountered two in our field research. One is a cooperative of
small indigenous farmers that, as of March 2018, is organizing a system of agri- and eco-tourism
sites in a province in Southern Philippines. Ms Regidor likewise gave an example of how their
local government is assisting indigenous farming communities to establish a cooperative style
community-based cultural tourism (which includes agritourism) from the ground up. She said,
We want tourism to be felt by the grassroots. Right now the tourism establishments that can draw capital
are the ones benefiting. The ones in the grassroots level are not feeling the benefits. To address that, we
thought of going for community-based tourism. In terms of size, we cannot be like other destinations with
huge farms and resorts. We have to look for innovative ways. (Interview, 2 March 2018)

We are uncertain of the actual number of cooperative-based agritourism sites in the country,
but the absence of such record (even if these sites are already in existence, as we observed) sug-
gests that this is not a top priority for the state’s national level planning and development board
for agritourism. Moreover, there is evidence to show that the state’s emphasis on accreditation
and already established agritourism sites may undermine the development of smaller, commu-
nity-based agritourism initiatives. Ms Regidor’s accounts above are cases in point. She expressed
her concerns about DOT’s tendency to impose preset programs that favor established agritour-
ism sites owned by elite land owners, and redirect efforts towards agritourism concepts and
standards that do not align with the interests of the small indigenous farmers. Dissuaded by the
prohibitive requirements of accreditation, in the end the local government and the farmers
decided to disassociate themselves from the national agritourism program. Doing so means that
this particular community-based agritourism venture will not gain access to the state-private elite
1350 M. J. F. MONTEFRIO AND H. L. SIN

network of the national agritourism program and its associated material benefits. Its potentials
and successes may also not reach governance discourses beyond the local.

Conclusion
Still largely underdeveloped, the scholarship on the governance of agritourism has often por-
trayed this rural tourism development as spontaneously driven by farm families and the tourist
demand for the rural idyll. Thus, much of the literature, which has largely focused on the experi-
ence of the West, points to the prospects of agritourism and farm tourism to deliver sustainable
and inclusive rural development. However, very few studies have thus far questioned the
assumption of the normative farm family. In this paper, we challenge this assumption by closely
examining the complexities of agritourism governance in the Philippines.
We build on Sonnino’s (2004) argument that agritourism providers may no longer be repre-
sented by small farm families. Just like any agrarian system, agritourism can be class differentiated
and captured by the wealthy farming class – this is certainly the case in our study in the
Philippines. This paper highlights that agritourism in this case not only consists of privileged farm-
ers, but also implicates complex elite networks involving the state and other non-state entities. It
supports Srisomyong and Meyer’s (2015) study, which likewise accords attention to these networks
and the political economy in which these networks are situated. In placing emphasis on the polit-
ics of tourism governance, in particular the power dynamics that help elucidate the mechanisms
by which networks include/exclude particular individuals and groups, we argue for a critical shift
away from the normative assumption of agritourism that it is built by or favors the rural poor.
Instead, we bring to light the state-private elite network that forms despite the official rhetoric of
helping the marginalized rural poor.
The examination of the politics of tourism governance necessitates an analysis of power. Power
in tourism can manifest in various forms (Cheong & Miller, 2000) and are often intertwined with
the political economic contexts from which a tourism enterprise is situated. In the case of the
Philippines, the politics of agritourism governance unfolds within the context of the state’s neo-
liberal approach to governance and the deep-seated patronage politics that has beset Philippine
politics since the colonial period. Such politics has thus far created uneven conditions that favor
landed elites and exclude underprivileged small farmers. The patronage politics and the resulting
state-private elite network that dominate agritourism in the country are facilitated and further rein-
forced by the powers associated with Bachrach and Baratz’s (1963, Bachrach & Baratz, 1970) non-
decision-making and the mobilization of bias. Institutional procedures, in particular the agritourism
accreditation system, operate as a gatekeeper that systematically includes and excludes actors
from the benefits associated with patronage politics and the elite network. There could be other
power dynamics at play (e.g. Lukes’s third dimension of power), but these did not surface in our
empirics. A focus on subjectivities might reveal other powers at play, such as how governance can
shape the very wants and desires of farmers (e.g. how farmers can be made to accept as fact that
there are limited acceptable ways of practicing agritourism). This paper does not make claims of
comprehensively uncovering all types of power involved in agritourism politics, but instead dem-
onstrates how attention to power can deepen our appreciation and understanding of the complex-
ities of politics as it unfolds in any particular context of agritourism governance.
A closer look at politics and power also allows us to examine the sustainability claims of agri-
tourism with a more critical perspective. Rather than taking the sustainability of agritourism at
face value, our analysis suggests the propensity of agritourism governance in the Philippines to
undermine one important dimension of sustainable development – inclusive growth. The patron-
age politics pervasive in the country’s historical agrarian political economy has critical implica-
tions on the capacity of agritourism to include the interests of marginalized small farmers.
Agritourism, while promoted as such, is no panacea to rural poverty and inequalities in the
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1351

Philippines. The dominance of an elite-driven network in agritourism and the mobilization of

bias associated with the accreditation system pose serious barriers to realizing a more equitable
and inclusive agritourism development. Our call to be attentive to politics therefore helps point
to specific aspects of agritourism governance that may get in the way of realizing its sustainabil-
ity promises, especially in a context where actors driving its development are other than the nor-
mative farm family and the tourists demanding the rural idyll.

Notes
1. Rural tourism is a broader concept that encompasses agritourism, farm tourism, ecotourism and
nature tourism.
2. Agritourism includes “farm stays, bed-and-breakfasts, pick-your-own produce, agricultural festivals, [and] farm
tours for children” (McGehee & Kim, 2004, p. 162). We conflate the term agritourism with “farm tourism”, a
term commonly used in the European context.
3. Lukes (2005) further develops Dahl (1958) and Bachrach and Baratz, (1963, 1970) by advancing that power
can also be exercised latently by “influencing, shaping or determining [an individual or group’s] very wants”
to prevent conflicts from arising at the outset (p. 27)—the three-dimensional view of power. We imagine this
kind of power manifesting in rural and agritourism governance, but we have yet to see indications of this
manifesting in the Philippine case.
4. Information obtained from the Philippine Statistics Authority (psa.gov.ph). Note that rural population does not
equate to agricultural population, as the former may not always depend on agricultural livelihoods.
5. The average farm size in the Philippines is around two hectares, with close to 70% of the total number of
documented holdings attributed to farms with less than 2 hectares (FAO, 2010). We also note that many
Filipino small farmers either do not own land or have insecure/informal tenure arrangements.
6. Friars are members of religious orders of men.
7. A Torrens is a system of land registration that guarantees an indefeasible proof of ownership to those
included in the state’s register of land holdings (Montefrio, 2014). Cadastral laws are laws pertaining to the
measurement, valuation and ownership of land.
8. Anonymised to protect identities of agritourism enterprises.

Disclosure disclosure
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Marvin Joseph F. Montefrio is an Assistant Professor of Social Science (Environmental Studies) at Yale-NUS
College, Singapore. His main research interest is critical development studies, with particular focus on the political
economy/ecology and cultural politics of agriculture and food sustainability in Southeast Asia. Email: marvin.monte-
frio@yale-nus.edu.sg
Harng Luh Sin is an Associate Professor in the School of Tourism Management at Sun Yat-Sen University, China.
Her research interests revolve around the mobilities of people – in the broad spectrum from tourism to migration,
as well as the mobilities and fluidities of abstract ideas such as moral and social responsibilities, ethics, and care (at
a distance) and how these translate through discursive platforms like social media and into real practices on the
ground. Email: harngluh@gmail.com

References
Aguilar, F. Jr. (1998). Clash of spirits: The History of power and sugar planter hegemony on a Visayan Island. Honolulu,
HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1963). Decisions and nondecisions: An analytical framework. American Political Science
Review, 57(03), 632–642. doi:10.2307/1952568
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1970). Power and poverty: Theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barbieri, C. (2013). Assessing the sustainability of agri-tourism in the US: A comparison between agri-tourism and
other farm entrepreneurial ventures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(2), 252–270. doi:10.1080/
09669582.2012.685174
1352 M. J. F. MONTEFRIO AND H. L. SIN

Bello, W. (2004). The anti-development state: The political economy of permanent crisis in the Philippines. Philippines:
University of the Philippines.
Bello, W. (2009). Neoliberalism as hegemonic ideology in the Philippines: Rise, apogee, and crisis. Philippine
Sociological Review, 57, 9–19.
Borras, S. M. (2007). ‘Free market’, export-led development strategy and its impact on rural livelihoods, poverty and
inequality: The Philippine experience seen from a Southeast Asian perspective. Review of International Political
Economy, 14(1), 143–175. doi:10.1080/09692290601081426
Bowler, I., Clark, G., Crockett, A., Ilbery, B., & Shaw, A. (1996). The development of alternative farm enterprises: A
study of family labour farms in the Northern Pennines of England. Journal of Rural Studies, 12(3), 285–195. doi:
10.1016/0743-0167(96)00015-0
Boyce, J. K. (1993). The Philippines: The political economy of growth and impoverishment in the Marcos era. Honolulu,
HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2012). Introduction: Critical research on the governance of tourism sustainability. In B.
Bramwell & B. Lane (Eds.), Tourism governance: Critical perspectives on governance and sustainability (pp. 1–12).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, V. (1996). Heritage, tourism and rural regeneration: The heritage regions programme in Canada. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 4(3), 174–182. doi:10.1080/09669589608667266
Burns, P. M., & Novelli, M. (2007). Tourism and politics: Introduction. In P.M. Burns & M. Novelli (Eds.), Tourism and
politics: Global frameworks and local realities (pp. 1–4). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Busby, G., & Rendle, S. (2000). The Transition from tourism on farms to farm tourism. Tourism Management, 21(6),
635–642. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00011-X
BusinessWorld. (2019, April 26) Farm tourism gaining ground in PHL. BusinessWorld. Retrieved from https://www.
bworldonline.com/farm-tourism-gaining-ground-in-phl/
Cawley, M. (2009). Tourism, rural. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International encyclopedia of Human geography.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cawley, M., Gillmor, D. A., Leavy, A., & McDonagh, P. (1995). Farm diversification: Studies relating to the West of
Ireland. Dublin: Teagasc.
Che, D., Veeck, A., & Veeck, G. (2005). Sustaining production and strengthening the agritourism product: Linkages
among Michigan agritourism destinations. Agriculture and Human Values, 22(2), 225–234. doi:10.1007/s10460-
004-8282-0
Cheong, S., & Miller, M. L. (2000). Power and tourism. A Foucauldian observation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2),
371–390. doi:10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00065-1
Church, A., & Coles, T. (2007a). Tourism, politics and the forgotten entanglements of power. In A. Church & T. Coles
(Eds.), Tourism, power and space (pp. 1–42). New York: Routledge.
Church, A., & Coles, T. (2007b). Tourism and the many faces of power. In A. Church & T. Coles (Eds.), Tourism, power
and space (pp. 269–283). New York: Routledge.
Cohen, E. (1987). Alternative tourism: A critique. Tourism Recreation Research, 12(2), 13–18. doi:10.1080/
02508281.1987.11014508
Dahl, R. A. (1958). A critique of the ruling elite model. American Political Science Review, 52(02), 463–469. doi:
10.2307/1952327
Davies, E. T., & Gilbert, D. C. (1992). A case study of the development of farm tourism in Wales. Tourism
Management, 13(1), 56–63. doi:10.1016/0261-5177(92)90033-4
Deville, A., Wearing, S., & McDonald, M. (2016). WWOOFing in Australia: Ideas and lessons for a de-commodified
sustainability tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24, 91–113. doi:10.1080/09669582.2015.1049607
Doronila, A. (1985). The transformation of patron-client relations and its political consequences in postwar
Philippines. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 16(01), 99–116. doi:10.1017/S0022463400012789
Dredge, D. (2006). Networks, conflict and collaborative communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 562–581.
doi:10.2167/jost567.0
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2011). Stories of practice: Tourism policy and planning. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Ferrer, C. (2017). DOT to establish farm tourism site in every town. Philippine News Agency. http://www.pna.gov.ph/
articles/1011630.
Getz, D., & Carlsen, J. (2000). Characteristics and goals of family and owner-operated business in the rural tourism
industry and hospitality sectors. Tourism Management, 21(6), 547–560. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00004-2
Hall, C. M. (1994). Tourism and politics: Policy, power and place. Chichester: Wiley.
Hall, C. M. (1999). Rethinking collaboation and partnership: A public policy perspective. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 7(3–4), 274–289. doi:10.1080/09669589908667340
Hall, C. M. (2007). Tourism, governance and the (mis-)location of power. In A. Church & T. Coles (Eds.), Tourism,
power and space (pp. 247–268). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hall, C. M. (2011). A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analysis. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 19(4–5), 437–457. doi:10.1080/09669582.2011.570346
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1353

Hall, C. M., & Jenkins, J. (1998). The policy dimensions of rural tourism and recreation. In R. Butler, C. M. Hall, & J.
Jenkins (Eds.), Tourism and recreation in rural areas (pp. 19–42). England, UK: Wiley.
Hutchcroft, P. D. (1998). Booty capitalism: The politics of banking in the Philippines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Hutchcroft, P. D. (2014). Linking captial and countryside: Patronage and clientilism in Japan, Thailand, and the
Philippines. In D. A. Brun & L. Diamond (Eds.), Clientilism, social policy, and the quality of democracy (pp.
174–203). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ioannides, D. (1998). Tour operators: The gatekeepers of tourism. In D. Ioannides & K. Debbage (Eds.), The economic
geography of the tourist industry: A supply-side analysis (pp. 137–156). London, UK: Routledge.
Jenkins, J., Hall, C. M., & Troughton, M. (1998). The restructuring of rural economies: Rural tourism and recreation as
a government response. In R. Butler, C. M. Hall, & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Tourism and recreation in rural areas (pp.
44–67). England, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Jepson, D., & Sharpley, R. (2015). More than sense of place? Exploring the emotional dimension of rural tourism
experiences. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(8–9), 1157–1178. doi:10.1080/09669582.2014.953543
Kerkvliet, B. (1977). The Huk Rebellion: A study of peasant revolt in the Philippines. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. doi:10.1086/ahr/83.1.260
Kerkvliet, B. (2013). Everyday politics in the Philippines: Class and status relations in a Central Luzon village. Manila,
Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Kline, C., Barbieri, C., & LaPan, C. (2016). The influence of agritourism on niche meats loyalty and purchasing.
Journal of Travel Research, 55(5), 643–658. doi:10.1177/0047287514563336
Lane, B., & Kastenholz, E. (2015). Rural tourism: The evolution of practice and research approaches – towards a new
generation concept?. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(8–9), 1133–1156. doi:10.1080/09669582.2015.1083997
Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view. London: McMillan.
Lupi, C., Giaccio, V., Mastronardi, L., Giannelli, A., & Scardera, A. (2017). Exploring the features of agritourism and its
contribution to rural development in Italy. Land Use Policy, 64, 383–390. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.002
McGehee, N. G. (2007). An agritourism systems model: A Weberian perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
15(2), 111–124. doi:10.2167/jost634.0
McGehee, N. G., & Kim, K. (2004). Motivation for agri-tourism entrepreneurship. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2),
161–170. doi:10.1177/0047287504268245
Mokken, R. J., & Stokman, F. N. (1976). Power and influence as political phenomena. In B. Barry (Ed.), Power and pol-
itical theory: Some European Perspectives (pp. 33–54). London, UK: Wiley.
Montefrio, M. J. F. (2014). State versus indigenous peoples rights: Comparative analysis of stable system parameters,
policy constraints and the process of delegitimation. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 16(4), 335–355. doi:
10.1080/13876988.2014.938912
Montefrio, M. J. F. (2017). Land control dynamics and socio-ecological transformations in upland Philippines.
Journal of Peasant Studies, 44(4), 796–816. doi:10.1080/03066150.2016.1257988
Montefrio, M. J. F., & Dressler, W. (2016). The green economy and constructions of the ‘idle’ and ‘unproductive’
uplands in the Philippines. World Development, 79, 114–126. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.009
Nickerson, N. P., Black, R. J., & McCool, S. F. (2001). Agritourism: Motivations behind Farm/Ranch Business
Diversification. Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 19–26. doi:10.1177/004728750104000104
Ortega, A. A. (2018). Neoliberalizing spaces in the Philippines: Suburbanization, transnational migration, and disposses-
sion. Manila, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Padin, M. G. (2016). Farm tourism law a boost to agricultural growth. The Philippine Star. https://www.philstar.com/
business/agriculture/2016/08/21/1615560/farm-tourism-law-boost-agricultural-growth.
Pearce, D. G. (1987). Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.
Pelzer, K. (1945). Pioneer settlement in the Asiatic tropics: Studies in land utilization and agriultural colonization in
Southeast Asia. New York, NY: American Geographical Society.
Richter, L. K. (2007). Democracy and tourism: Exploring the nature of an inconsistent relationship. In P. M. Burns &
M. Novelli (Eds.), Tourism and politics: Global frameworks and local realities (pp. 5–16). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Senate of the Philippines. (2015). Villar sponsors committee report on farm tourism bill. Retrieved from http://www.
senate.gov.ph/press_release/2015/1201_villar1.asp.
Sharpley, R. (2007). Flagship attractions and sustainable rural tourism development: The case of Alnwick Garden,
England. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 125–143. doi:10.2167/jost604.0
Simbulan, D. (2005). The modern principalia: The historical evolution of the Philippine ruling oligarchy (2nd ed.).
Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.
Sonnino, R. (2004). For a ‘piece of bread’? Interpreting sustainable development through agritourism in southern
Tuscany. Sociologia Ruralis, 44(3), 285–300. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00276.x
Srisomyong, N., & Meyer, D. (2015). Political economy of agritourism initiatives in Thailand. Journal of Rural Studies,
41, 95–108. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.07.007
Tew, C., & Barbieri, C. (2012). The perceived benefits of agritourism: The provider’s perspective. Tourism
Management, 33(1), 215–224. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.005
1354 M. J. F. MONTEFRIO AND H. L. SIN

Verbole, A. (2000). Actors, discourses and interfaces of rural tourism development at the local community level in
Slovenia: Social and political dimensions of the rural tourism development process. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 8(6), 479–490. doi:10.1080/09669580008667381
Weaver, D. B. (1991). Alternatives to mass tourism in Dominica. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(3), 414–432. doi:
10.1016/0160-7383(91)90049-H
Weaver, D. B., & Fennell, D. A. (1997). The vacation farm sector in Saskatchewan: A profile of operations. Tourism
Management, 18(6), 357–365. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(97)00039-3
Zobroredo, B. (2017). Villar’s heart for tourism. Retrieved from http://www.manilastandard.net/lifestyle/lifestyle-col-
umns/mercury-rising-by-bob-zozobrado/250620/villar-s-heart-for-tourism.html.

View publication stats