The effect of Canada's immigrant populations on the annual flow of visitors to Canada is investigated. A simple utility-maximizing model of the travel decision motivates the role of immigrant populations in the aggregate demand equation for visits to Canada. The model implies testable hypotheses: price and income elasticities differ by purpose of trip. Using time-series cross-section data on 22 OECD countries an empirical demand model is estimated. Demand is measured by both the number of visitors and person-nights and separate equations are estimated for four subcategories of 'purpose of trip'. Immigrant populations are found to have a strong influence on the annual flow of foreign visitors. It is estimated that the present value of the stream of spending by foreign visitors attributable to an additional immigrant is approximately $4550 in 1996 dollars. In accordance with the model's predictions, price and income elasticity estimates are greater for vacationers than for those visiting family and friends.
Differences between real tourism satellite accounts and the WTTC/WEFA ‘simulated tourism satellite accounts’ are described. These differences are both conceptual and methodological, including the fact that the World Tourism and Travel Council (WTTC) methodology fails to conform to the World Tourism Organization/UN definitions. Some empirical problems associated with the WTTC methodology also are detailed. These include the inappropriate use of Consumer Price Index weightings and WTTC's reliance on US data sources to make inferences about other nations' economies. The paper concludes that the WTTC methodology does not represent a ‘simulated tourism satellite account’.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.