Traditional economic development analysis relies heavily on GDP per capita. However, contemporary studies increasingly incorporate non-economic factors like education and health, leading to a broader understanding of human development, often measured by the Human Development Index (HDI). Tourism, with its potential for job creation, foreign currency generation, and revenue increase, is considered a significant driver of economic growth and development in many countries. While numerous studies have established links between tourism and economic growth (tourism-led growth, economy-driven tourism growth, and bidirectional relationships), this study addresses a gap in the literature by investigating the multidimensional relationship between tourism and human development using a large sample of countries. Previous studies have often relied on smaller samples or econometric methods that are not able to capture the nuances of the relationship. This paper aims to analyze the qualitative dynamic relationship between tourism and development, specifically focusing on how countries with similar development levels differ based on their degree of tourism specialization. By introducing the concept of 'economic regime', the study intends to identify groups of countries that exhibit similar dynamic behaviors to explore the heterogeneity in this relationship. This approach avoids a restrictive causal inference and allows for a more detailed examination of the dynamic interaction, potentially identifying groups of countries trapped in a poverty trap.

Historically, development studies primarily focused on economic growth, equating efficient resource allocation with maximized growth and increased consumption as indicators of welfare. However, this perspective shifted with the work of Sen, emphasizing the connection between development and population living conditions. Studies on the relationship between tourism and economic growth have yielded three primary conclusions: 1) tourism development drives economic growth; 2) economic cycles influence tourism development; and 3) a bidirectional causal relationship exists between tourism and economic growth. The use of HDI as a measure of development offers advantages over solely economic indicators, providing a broader view of societal progress by incorporating life expectancy and educational levels alongside per capita income. Existing studies on tourism and human development have produced mixed results, with some showing a positive unidirectional relationship (tourism leading to increased development), others suggesting this only holds true for developed countries, and others denying any relationship at all. These inconsistent findings highlight the need for more comprehensive empirical research. Therefore, this study addresses the lack of conclusive research on the multidimensional relationship between tourism and human development by employing a qualitative dynamic analysis.

This study analyzes the dynamic relationship between tourism specialization and HDI across 123 countries from 1995 to 2019. The data include international tourist arrivals per capita (or international visitors where tourist arrival data was unavailable) from UNWTO, HDI data from the UNDP, and population data from the World Bank. The researchers employed a symbolic time series analysis, incorporating the concept of 'economic regimes' to compare the qualitative dynamics of countries. This methodology addresses the challenge of comparing variables with different units (tourist arrivals per capita vs. HDI). The state space of tourism and development is divided into four regimes based on annual averages of each variable. Each country's time series data is then symbolized as a sequence of these four regimes (R1 to R4, representing high HDI & high tourism, high HDI & low tourism, low HDI & low tourism, and low HDI & high tourism, respectively). A distance metric is introduced to measure the similarity of countries' symbolic time series. The distance is calculated by summing the number of years where the regimes differ between pairs of countries. Finally, a minimum spanning tree (MST) is constructed using Kruskal's algorithm to identify clusters of countries with similar dynamic trajectories.

The analysis reveals a significant lack of mobility between regimes for most countries. 80 countries remained within the same regime for the entire study period, or at least for three-quarters of it. This points to stability in the tourism and development dynamics. Four main groups were identified: Group A (high tourism specialization and high HDI), Group B (low tourism specialization and high HDI), Group C (low tourism specialization and low HDI), and Group D (high tourism specialization and low HDI). While Group C, encompassing a third of the countries (43), showcases a poverty trap, where low development hampers tourism expansion, and vice versa; Group A, predominantly European countries and a few others, exhibits the highest average HDI. This suggests a strong positive correlation between high tourism specialization and high development. Even in the low development scenario, Group D and F countries show significantly higher HDI than Group C, emphasizing the potential of tourism to boost development. Geographic distribution of the groups showed Group A predominantly in Europe, Group B more dispersed, Group C mainly in Africa and parts of Asia, and Groups D and F scattered across continents. The results suggest a strong positive correlation between higher tourism specialization and higher human development levels across various development stages.

The findings support the hypothesis that higher tourism specialization is associated with higher levels of human development. This relationship is evident in both high-development (Group A vs. Group B) and low-development (Groups D & F vs. Group C) country groups. However, some exceptions exist, like Belize, Botswana, Jamaica, the Maldives, and Tunisia. These cases might be attributable to factors beyond tourism specialization, such as infrastructure, education levels, investment climates, urbanization, and commercial openness. These factors highlight the complexity of the tourism-development relationship. The stability in country regimes over the study period suggests structural changes in economies are relatively slow, especially when considered on an annual timeframe. The significant number of countries trapped in the low development-low tourism specialization regime underscores the necessity for targeted interventions.

This study contributes to understanding the complex and dynamic relationship between tourism and human development, indicating that higher tourism specialization is associated with higher development levels. Policy implications highlight the importance of strategic investment in tourism infrastructure and the complementary factors needed to effectively channel the economic gains of tourism into improvements in human development. Specific attention should be directed towards less developed countries, potentially through the support of international organizations. Future research should focus on regional-level analysis, incorporating the type of tourism received, and examining the influence of various destination characteristics on the tourism-human development linkage.

The study's limitations include the choice of variables (tourism specialization and HDI) and the time period (1995-2019), potentially influencing the observed stability. The analysis is conducted at the country level, ignoring potential regional variations. The symbolization method might also affect results, suggesting the use of alternative measures in future studies. Furthermore, the study does not explicitly examine the effects of destination characteristics on the relationship between tourism and human development.