The overall system of government and its organisational structure should be understood as one of the considerations for determining the most suitable organising role of government in tourism development. For example, tourism would be somewhat differently organised in a country with a highly centralised government structure than in one with a more decentralised government. For example, Thailand may have one tourism policy for the entire country but in a country like India states may have their own policies which may or may not be as per the policies of the central government.

Political ideologies and influences can greatly affect the type and extent of tourism development and how it is developed and managed. Hence, these factors must be considered in the planning process. Emphasising this point, Gunn (1988) states that a review of tourism policies generally suggests that the dimensions and results of tourism planning will be influenced most by the nation’s ideology and its interpretation for overall social, political and economic goals. Policies and practices for tourism will follow the overall policies and practices of the nation as a whole. This is reflected:

• in the relative roles of government and private enterprise (how profits are divided),
• in the sectors most likely to benefit,
• by domestic versus foreign travel influences, and
• through the relative dependence on tourism for economic development.

Independent of basic differences in political ideologies, the government policies towards tourism development, often influenced by socio -cultural and environmental considerations, can vary greatly.

Some countries may want to greatly control tourism for reasons of limiting outside influences on their religious and cultural systems. On the other hand, some countries desire to develop tourism rapidly for economic reasons. Major international events such as Olympics, trade fairs and important conferences may, for example, be hosted at great expense by countries for reasons primarily of

enhancing national