The undelivered promise of luxury tourism: Why some get out and others don’t?

Tourism growth has been widely presented as a solution to catalyze growth and provide much-needed foreign exchange for African economies. Since the 1990s, the World Bank, private sector organizations, NGOs, and national governments have promoted tourism to achieve growth that is environmentally sustainable (Duffy Reference Duffy2015; Sharpley and Telfer Reference Sharpley and Telfer2023). Several economists have also stressed the positive impact of tourism on growth and economic diversification, as well as its capacity for employment generation (Signe Reference Signe2018; Nyasha, Odhiambo, and Asongo Reference Nyasha, Odhiambo and Asongo2021). At the same time, donors have recognized that tourism growth is often characterized by inequalities. As a result, the World Bank and bilateral donors have supported several programs aimed at community empowerment, as well as stressed the potential of opportunities for the growth of small-and-medium enterprises (World Bank 2011).

However, critical social science research has consistently described the negative, exclusionary outcomes associated with tourism strategies. Global tourism growth—including supposedly environmental and inclusive forms of tourism such as ecotourism—have been criticized for being Western constructs and implicated in the spread of global capitalist expansion (Duffy Reference Duffy2015). Tourism growth has also been characterized by enclavic processes within countries, separating tourism and tourists from local realities, with benefits often restricted to a limited range of actors (Saarinen, Rogerson, and Hall Reference Saarinen, Rogerson and Hall2017). Local communities rarely benefit from such strategies. Repeatedly, new fads within tourism from pro-poor growth to ecotourism are regularly criticized on similar grounds, illustrating the inequality and foreign dependence associated with such strategies (Duffy Reference Duffy2015; Gascon Reference Gascon2015).

The spread of luxury tourism is based on the promise that fewer tourists arriving in tourist destinations will result in lower ecological impacts in host countries while also providing more revenues. Luxury tourism strategies focus on increasing the spend/day of each tourist. Most stakeholders generally assume that the success of luxury tourism rests on attracting (mostly) North American and European tourists who pay all-inclusive packages but only visit the most expensive tourist destinations within countries. Such logics obscure the fact that North American or European tourists who visit an ecolodge in African countries fly vast distances and thus, their ecological impact remains concealed (Gössling and Upham Reference Stefan and Upham2009). Despite these criticisms, a strong international policy consensus is evident on the ecological and economic benefit of promoting luxury tourism strategies. As this essay shows, luxury tourism only exacerbates the inequalities associated with mass tourism strategies, with foreign tourism operators and a few foreign (or sometimes large, private domestic) firms tending to gain most benefits. Additionally, luxury tourism remains at odds with any strategy aimed at strengthening linkages between tourist consumption and domestic production. This is because luxury tourism usually requires firms to meet international standards, which domestic producers are unable to meet. Thus, prioritizing luxury tourism strategies obstructs structural transformation.

A review of the political economy of tourism literature (Bianchi Reference Bianchi2018) highlights the importance of developing a deeper understanding of the role states play in shaping evolving tourism strategies in the Global South. Governments with high state capacity in African countries have been quick to follow the fad of promoting luxury tourism strategies. Yet, some have now realized that luxury tourism did not provide the (economic) benefits that were expected. Why do some countries adapt their tourism strategies away from a focus on luxury tourism once they opt for them while others do not?

Social scientists would generally assume that state capability would determine whether governments may be able to adapt their development strategies once they recognize policies are not delivering the outcomes that were predicted (Centeno, Kohli, and Yashar Reference Centeno, Kohli and Yashar2017). Crucially, adapting strategies requires managing political threats from other actors (including foreign investors, other domestic capitalists, or even factions) who may have benefited from the status quo. A growing literature within African political economy, inspired by Mushtaq Khan’s (Reference Khan2010) political settlements framework, has argued that countries with high implementation capability and long-horizon orientations would be better at implementing policies. Within the developmental state literature (Wade Reference Wade1990; Evans Reference Evans1995), scholars argue that autonomous bureaucracies (as existed in authoritarian East Asian countries) were more effective at implementing long-horizon oriented strategies as they could deal with pressures associated with the contestation of their policies.

Such arguments would lead us to assume that countries like Mauritius, Botswana, and Rwanda, which are widely characterized as African countries with high state capability and as developmental states (Sandbrook Reference Sandbrook2005; Botlhale Reference Botlhale2017; Mann and Berry Reference Mann and Berry2016; Routley Reference Routley2014), would easily reverse their luxury tourism strategies once they were not delivering the promised benefits. Yet in all three countries, reversing strategies have long been discussed. Only after a severe external shock in the form of the Covid-19 pandemic did governments finally adapt their tourism strategies. Ultimately, domestic pressures related to unemployment and inequality in Mauritius and Botswana, where ruling parties were anxious about remaining in power, compelled governments to adapt strategies. In Rwanda, despite luxury tourism being deprioritized during the Covid-19 pandemic, the RPF government shows little intention to change track. In contrast to the existing literature on the benefits associated with long-horizon policy orientation in authoritarian over democratic countries, this article shows how domestic political pressure in “democratic” developmental states has contributed to more flexible policymaking than in “authoritarian” Rwanda.

Next, the essay describes the evolution of luxury tourism strategies in Mauritius, Botswana, and Rwanda. It discusses the evolution and weaknesses of the strategies, how they were contested, and why they were reversed in Mauritius and Botswana while remaining the centerpiece of Rwanda’s development strategy.

Mauritius: Escaping or stuck in paradise?

Mauritius’s development trajectory has been widely celebrated. Four sectors form the strategic pillars of the country’s economic diversification strategy: sugar, textiles, financial services, and tourism. Mauritius’s tourism strategy has also been highlighted as an example for other countries (World Bank 2006; Durbarry Reference Durbarry2004). The Mauritian government has prioritized enhancing its reputation in Europe as a luxury destination, arguing that such strategies would preserve the island’s ecology while also neglecting other potential sources of tourism arrivals. The Mauritian government—through the Mauritius Government Tourist Office (MGTO) and later, the Mauritius Tourism Promotion Authority (MTPA)—prioritized growing tourism in the country through promoting the island as a location for 3S (sun, sand, and sea), focusing on low-impact, high-end tourism. Figure 1 highlights the increases in tourism arrivals and tourism receipts between 1972 and 2023. This includes a severe drop during the Covid-19 pandemic, but tourism arrivals and revenues recovered between 2021 and 2023. This section describes the evolution of Mauritius’s tourism sector growth, highlighting how Euro-Mauritian business houses and foreign entities have concentrated profits from the sector. Tourism growth has been increasingly characterized by inequality, with parts of the bureaucracy and the population critical of the exclusionary aspects of luxury tourism. One significant way the Mauritian government has maintained its luxury image is by regulating air travel, particularly through limiting flights from Asian countries. The Covid-19 pandemic ultimately provided an opportunity—because of the dire need for foreign exchange—to adapt the luxury tourism strategy and increase flights from Asia. This section describes how Euro-Mauritian business houses and other stakeholders initially resisted these changes, but due to the political vulnerability faced by the ruling party, it ultimately forced the government to loosen the prioritization of luxury tourism.

Figure 1. Tourist arrivals and tourism earnings in Mauritius: 1972–2023.

Source: Mauritius’s Ministry of Tourism.

Mauritius’s population and politics is largely dominated by Mauritians of South Asian descent (most of whose families initially came to work in Mauritius’s sugar sector as indentured laborers). A small, largely wealthy Euro-Mauritian (many of whom are descendants of former Franco-Mauritian landowners) population also continues to live on the island alongside a small Creole population and a tiny East Asian-Mauritian population. Since the 1960s, Euro-Mauritians benefited almost exclusively from owning campement land, which refers to land located near the ocean usually used as a seaside home that was leased from the government at a very cheap rate. (The Mauritian population can only freely access around 16 percent of the coast line and 12 percent of beach land). Campement owners benefited from cheap loans and tax holidays if they were to build hotels on this land. The National Tourism Development Plan 2002, Il Maurice Durable strategy (focusing on sustainable development) and the Hotel Development Strategy 2009 reinforced the goal of attracting high-spending tourists with an emphasis on investments in upgrading existing hotel facilities and expanding construction of luxury hotels.

Luxury tourism was initially prioritized to ensure Mauritius’s environment was managed sustainably. As one senior civil servant argued, “Tourism is just 9% of GDP. We can’t be all things to all people. We picked our niche and went for being a high-value destination.”Footnote ¹ In 1997, the government proposed a “green ceiling” where the number of tourists would be limited to prevent overdevelopment of the island’s environment (Government of Mauritius 1997). The government was also worried about increasing social unrest in Mauritius society towards the end of the 1990s. A long-held symbol of this inequality were the Euro-Mauritian-owned campements, which were mostly under Franco-Mauritian ownership. There was a perception that a “small group of white Franco-Mauritians have access to more prime beaches than the almost 1.3 million other Mauritians” (Salverda Reference Salverda2015, 242).

Euro-Mauritian business houses benefited from initial subsidies in the sector. Even today, nearly all the largest luxury beachside resorts are fully or partially owned by these business houses (including brands such as Beach Comber and Lux, which have also established hotels outside Mauritius). To address popular grievances that the benefits of the sector were concentrated among those who owned the high-value seaside locations (mostly Euro-Mauritians), the Government of Mauritius’s Integrated Resorts Scheme (IRS), along with its Real Estate Scheme (RES), was introduced as part of Investment Promotion Regulations in 2002. With the IRS, in particular, villas (up to US$500,000 in value) were sold to meet the government’s goals of being a luxury tourism destination, with high-class facilities including hotels with golf courses, swimming pools, marinas, and other facilities being constructed (Ramtohul Reference Ramtohul2016). Heavy criticism of the tourism sector remains, with the schemes resulting in increasing land and rental prices and concern among local Mauritians that foreigners are taking over the island (Wortman, Donaldson, and Westen Reference Wortman, Donaldson and Westen2016).

As Tijo Salverda (Reference Salverda2011, 562) argues, “white tourists predominantly stay in the luxurious hotel resorts—many of them owned by Franco-Mauritians … the influx of foreign travellers continues to equate white with wealth.” One retired senior government official mentioned that many exclusive hotels restricted access to the island’s best beaches and there has been an impression that “for decades, our population does not get access to our own beaches. Only white Europeans stay there and white Franco-Mauritians own them.”Footnote ² This has contributed to the perception of Mauritius’s tourism sector as a classic “enclave,” where “economic investment has been concentrated in secured enclaves, often with little or no economic benefit to the wider society” (Ferguson Reference Ferguson2005, 378). The Mauritian government does not tax the sector significantly, with traditional sales tax at around 15 percent and some taxes levied on hotels and restaurants at about 10 percent (Gooroochurn and Sinclair Reference Gooroochurn and Sinclair2005).

Euro-Mauritian hotel groups including Beachcomber, Constance Hotels, Lux Resorts, and Sun Resort held at least 70 percent of the market in 2012 (Chinnan Reference Chinnan2019). In 2019, government officials stated that the number remained accurate.Footnote ³ Government officials were also concerned about tourism “leakages.” Mowforth and Munt (Reference Mowforth and Munt2003) argue that there are three types of tourism leakages. The first refers to the purchase of imported goods and services by tourists. The second refers to the imports of goods and services by tourism establishments. The third refers to the repatriation of profits by owners of hotels. Since Mauritius is a low-tax jurisdiction, the island is particularly vulnerable to the third type of leakage besides the first two. Additionally, most all-inclusive luxury packages are sold within Europe; thus Mauritius does not retain profits from those bookings.Footnote ⁴

Tourism growth has become associated with growing racial inequality in Mauritius and has become a source of tension on the island. One retired bureaucrat argued:

Domestically, despite the tourism sector being among the largest employers on the island, wages were lower than the economy-wide average (Sharpley and Naidoo Reference Sharpley and Naidoo2010). The government’s 2018 strategic plan argued that “the tourism sector has for years been controlled by a handful of big operators and has not been democratised … giving rise to conflicts between the local community and hotel development promoters” (Ministry of Tourism 2018, 14).

Botswana: More than the Okavango?

This section describes how Botswana’s low-volume, high-value strategy was adopted in the shadow of lucrative diamond exports to provide an alternative source of foreign exchange and employment. Decades of prioritizing luxury tourism has benefited a transnational coalition of actors, including former political leaders such as former President Ian Khama who later left the ruling party, the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP). Tourism strategies became a point of conflict between Khama and his successor, President Mogweetsi Masisi. Masisi reversed a hunting ban, which was symbolic of more “inclusive” tourism strategies, directly opposing Khama’s prioritization of photographic tourism. The Botswana government’s loosening of its luxury tourism prioritization has occurred while the BDP weakened significantly in power (during Masisi’s rule) and later lost the 2024 election to the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC), led by current President Duma Boko.

Botswana benefits from expansive wildlife, especially in the Okavango region. Though tourism provides less revenue than the mining sector, 39 percent of land in Botswana is reserved for wildlife and nature-based tourism (Stone and Nyaupane Reference Stone and Nyaupane2020). The Okavango Delta is on the UNESCO World Heritage List and is also one of the Seven Natural Wonders of Africa. All the “Big Five” animals (lions, leopards, elephants, rhinoceroses, and buffaloes) are present in the Okavango Delta. With “Big Five” watching accounting for 88 percent of total African tourism revenues by one estimate, the potential to maximize financial benefits from wildlife tourism is significant (United Nations World Tourism Organization 2015).

Alongside Botswana’s support of luxury tourism, the government supported initiatives to improve livelihoods of communities living in conservation areas through the Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) program. Botswana’s CBNRM is a participatory approach, based on common property theory, encouraging decentralization and local ownership of conservation programs. Advocated by the World Bank and many environmental NGOs in the West, the CBNRM has been heavily criticized (Blaikie Reference Blaikie2006). The CBNRM has not provided the benefits it promised for local communities and in fact, has done little to change the nature of enclave tourism in Botswana (Mbaiwa Reference Mbaiwa2005). During former President Ian Khama’s leadership from 2010 to 2018, the establishment of a National Environment Fund (2010), Tourism Land Bank (2014), and a hunting ban (2014) directly reduced the resources available to local communities to advance their own interests in conservation areas (Mogende and Ramutsindela Reference Mogende and Ramutsindela2020). Former President Masisi reversed some of these policies including the hunting ban.

For decades, the extreme end of the “low-volume, high-value” tourism strategy has been perceived to be the luxurious photo-tourism industry, largely owned by multinational companies interested in promoting Botswana as an ecotourism destination with unspoiled wilderness (Mbaiwa Reference Mbaiwa2005). The promotion of “unspoilt” wilderness areas conform to foreign ideas about the “myth of wild Africa” and the photo-tourism industry (Adams and McShane Reference Adams and McShane1996) opposes regulated hunting and does not see the broader diversification of tourism activities as being in their interest.

Until recently, the BDP led the country with remarkable political stability and economic growth since independence. However, the extent of growth and the vulnerabilities of its resource-dependent strategy has been debated (Hillbom Reference Hillbom2012; Taylor Reference Taylor2012). In the 1960s, Botswana was a poor country largely dependent upon cattle exports, foreign aid, and remittances from migrant labor at South African mines (Poteete Reference Poteete2009). In a deal that has been widely celebrated, in 1975, the Botswana government negotiated with De Beers for a 50:50 share ownership in all Botswana’s mines (as compared to the previous 85:15 percent deal with De Beers) (Taylor and Mokhawa Reference Taylor and Mokhawa2003). For the last forty years, diamonds have been responsible for about a third of total GDP and 60–80 percent of foreign exchange earnings.

The tourism sector has always operated in the shadow of the diamond and livestock sectors in terms of political importance. However, a dire need for employment opportunities and economic diversification gradually brought tourism into focus. European and North American governments, as well as multilateral agencies, conducted scientific studies on conservation and advised the government on environmental policies. A 1976 Symposium on the Okavango Delta influenced the adoption of the 1990 tourism policy, which sought to maximize profits from the tourism sector while protecting the natural resources on which tourism depends. Prior to 1990, tourism in Botswana largely comprised casual campers (80 percent) as compared to around 20 percent of visitors who stayed in hotels or what was classified as “permanent accommodation.” The 1990 Botswana Tourism Policy outlined challenges associated with this, highlighting that “the 20% occupying permanent accommodation accounted for 80% of the expenditures by tourists in Botswana” (Government of Botswana 1990, 3).

Botswana’s tourism sector has been the second highest source of foreign exchange for most of the past two decades. Figure 2 highlights how the number of tourists arriving in the country doubled between 2005 and 2019, before dropping during the Covid-19 pandemic and then recovering slightly after 2022. Tourist arrivals and revenues recovered recently, with Botswana government policies aiming to both tap into a wider range of markets in Asia while also supporting mid-range hotels (rather than just top-end hotels). Between 1990 and 2020, the Botswana government prioritized retaining its luxury image and primarily aimed to boost the country’s reputation as a nature-based luxury tourism destination. The government’s policies have been geared in this direction, encouraging foreign investment (in partnership with Botswana firms) in safari lodges and ecotourism. However, since 2020, the government has altered its strategy, diversifying its tourism offering to hosting events, investing in its national carrier to boost regional flights, attracting more tourists from Asia, and increasing support for mid-range hotels (Hes Reference Hes2024).

Figure 2. Tourist arrivals and tourism receipts in Botswana.

Source: Botswana Statistics.

Politically, the BDP has struggled to deliver access to formal employment. The government has invested substantially in welfare programs (Botlhale and Molokwane Reference Botlhale and Molokwane2019). However, the BDP’s tenure has been presented as contributing to “poverty in the midst of plenty” with “strategies that have promoted large-scale cattle ownership, the diamond industry and other narrow sectors” providing limited equitable development (Ulriksen Reference Ulriksen2017, 88). The 2019 election was the most fiercely contested in Botswana’s history. Competing parties reacted to increasing inequalities within the country by promising welfare programs and increases in wages and jobs (Seabo and Nyenhuis Reference Seabo and Nyenhuis2021). The BDP, led by President Mokgweetsi Masisi, eventually formed the government despite former President Ian Khama’s attempt at ousting them after he formed his own party.

Foreign investors, in partnership with some wealthy and politically influential Botswana citizens, have lobbied for the sector to remain focused on luxury tourism and wildlife photography. According to one study, 54 percent of the accommodation facilities in Botswana were 100 percent owned by foreign safari companies and 27.7 percent jointly owned between Botswana citizen and non-citizen companies (Mbaiwa Reference Mbaiwa2011). Thus, the sector’s main beneficiaries in terms of profits are either foreign investors or a form of comprador capitalists (with Botswana nationals dependent on foreign investors). There have been consistent reports of leakages in terms of profits being repatriated abroad and limited use of Botswana-produced goods in hotel facilities (Stone, Stone, and Mbaiwa Reference Stone, Stone and Mbaiwa2017). Under 30 percent of goods used in hotels are produced in Botswana (Mbaiwa Reference Mbaiwa2011). As one government official explained:

Botswana has failed to capture revenues from international air travel, with most tourists that visit the Okavango Delta arriving on international airlines other than Air Botswana. Most international tourist bookings have also been handled in South Africa, leading to economic leakages of between 70 and 90 percent (Stone, Stone, and Mbaiwa Reference Stone, Stone and Mbaiwa2017). The absence of direct flights to Europe and the failure to handle tourist bookings through Botswana-based companies has been long considered an untapped source of foreign exchange. This is unlike neighboring country Namibia, “which has a smaller share of arrivals than Botswana but a larger share of receipts” (Mbaiwa Reference Mbaiwa2005, 161).

During Ian Khama’s presidency, ecotourism was the priority. In January 2014, Khama implemented an indefinite suspension on hunting, arguing that shooting wild game for sport and trophies was incompatible with a national commitment to conserve the environment. Some (Mbaiwa and Hambira Reference Mbaiwa and Hambira2020) argued that Khama’s hunting ban was personally motivated given his shareholding in leading tour operators like Wilderness Safaris. The hunting ban shifted priorities in the sector in favor of ecotourism and against more equitable tourism growth. As an experienced University of Botswana tourism professor explained:

During Khama’s tenure, foreign companies were given long-term leases spanning between thirty and fifty years, despite land management regulations suggesting leases of no more than fifteen years (Mbaiwa and Hambira Reference Mbaiwa and Hambira2020). Communities in Botswana register trusts with the High Court of Botswana. Through trusts, these communities form joint ventures with safari companies that organize hunts in their areas. Thus, the hunting ban resulted in communities losing money. Through the CBNRM in Botswana, community-based organizations depended on income through trophy hunting so Khama’s ban further contributed to strengthening the emphasis on ecotourism and exacerbating inequalities in the sector (Mbaiwa Reference Mbaiwa2011). President Khama initiated a tourism land bank, which transferred community tourism concession areas to the Botswana Tourism Organization (BTO), a government organization responsible for marketing Botswana tourism internationally (LaRocco and Mogende Reference LaRocco and Mogende2024). This land bank marginalized CBOs further by removing their capacity to negotiate with commercial tourism partners of their choice and, instead, having to go through the BTO.

In May 2018, President Masisi announced an end to the hunting moratorium and promised to issue no fewer than 400 licenses for elephant hunts each year. This shift away from Khama’s hunting ban has been accompanied by the prioritization of diversification within the tourism sector, opening the country to visitors beyond Europe and North America and increasing publicity for tourism attractions outside the Okavango Delta.

Rwanda: A luxury hub?

Rwanda’s rapidly growing tourism sector has followed the examples of Mauritius and Botswana in its prioritization of high-end tourism. Severe drops in tourism revenues during the Covid-19 pandemic motivated the Rwandan government to temporarily loosen its focus on luxury tourism. While the Mauritian and Botswana governments adapted luxury tourism strategies after the Covid-19 pandemic, the RPF government has doubled down on its focus on luxury tourism since then.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, Rwanda was an add-on destination for East African tourists who were already travelling to Kenya and Tanzania. Rwanda’s main tourist attraction has historically been the country’s mountain gorillas. Influenced by global trends around “best practice” of ecotourism and the supposed ecological sustainability of luxury tourism, the Rwandan government has prioritized becoming a high-end tourism destination by investing in the luxury image of gorilla tourism and becoming a business and financial hub. Tourism growth has become the most significant foreign exchange earner for the Rwandan economy. Yet, like in Botswana and Mauritius, the prioritization of luxury tourism in Rwanda has been characterized by unequal outcomes within the sector.

Since the 1994 genocide, the RPF government led by President Paul Kagame has been celebrated as a growth miracle (Diao and McMillan Reference Diao and McMillan2018; World Bank 2020). The services sector has been a significant contributor to Rwanda’s growth, outpacing growth in agriculture and industry (Behuria and Goodfellow Reference Behuria and Goodfellow2019). Tourism has been increasingly central to the country’s strategy, with the government aiming to becoming a regional hub for finance, tourism, transport, and sport. In 2000, tourism revenues were below US$20 million but by 2016, tourism revenues were US$374 million (Behuria and Goodfellow Reference Behuria and Goodfellow2019). After tourism revenues plummeted during the Covid-19 pandemic, tourism revenues reached record highs of US$647 million in 2024.

RPF rule has been characterized by relative political stability. Few rivals have emerged to contest Kagame’s control over the RPF. Opposition parties remain relatively powerless, with Kagame winning over 90 percent of the vote in the last three presidential elections. The RPF retains direct control over the economy. Few privately owned firms have achieved significant growth. Most sectors are dominated by either party- or military-owned firms or foreign investors (Behuria Reference Behuria2016). The first five-star hotel in Kigali, Serena Hotel, was initially an RPF investment and closely allied businesspeople pooled together funds to invest in mid-range hotels elsewhere. Some other local elites or military officials followed by investing in hotels but many of these hotels later went bankrupt. Currently, most major hotels in Rwanda are owned by foreign investors, with these investors often benefiting from significant tax breaks and other incentives.Footnote ²⁶

In Mauritius and Botswana, tourism has historically centered on specific attractions—beaches in Mauritius and wildlife in Botswana. The preceding sections show that enclave economies have evolved around these attractions, with domestic elites and multinationals consolidating control of the revenues generated. In Rwanda, the central tourist attraction has been the country’s national parks and in particular, mountain gorillas. At independence, Rwanda’s mountain gorillas had a global reputation because of renowned zoologist Dian Fossey’s work in the country. Her work was depicted in the 1998 film Gorillas in the Mist, which “drew global attention to the plight of the mountain gorilla, and generated unprecedented interest in the gorilla tourism program” (Booth and Briggs Reference Booth and Briggs2004, 178). However, this “interest” never translated to significant tourist arrivals given Rwanda had a civil war between 1990 and 1994.

Until the early 2000s, little was done to invest in the tourism sector but gorillas had become a national symbol. By 2004, visitors to Rwanda’s then approximately 250 mountain gorillas (comprising around 30 percent of the world’s mountain gorilla population) accounted for around 93 percent of Rwanda’s tourism revenues (Mazimhaka Reference Mazimhaka2007). On The Frontier, a consultancy company, which was hired to advise the Rwandan government on several sector development strategies, argued that transforming the sector through an investment of about US$100 million during the next eight years could increase tourist arrivals from 8,000 in 2002 to 80,000 by 2010 (Grosspietsch Reference Grosspietsch2006). As Figure 3 shows, these targets were surpassed. Tourism revenues steadily increased until 2019 before dropping during the Covid-19 pandemic and then recovering again after 2022.

Figure 3. Tourist arrivals and tourism revenues in Rwanda.

Note: There is no reliable data for tourist arrivals between 2000 and 2006.

Source: Rwanda Development Board (RDB).

The 2006 Tourism Policy prioritized attracting “high end ecotourism” (Government of Rwanda 2006). This focus on ecotourism has been promoted by International Financial Institutions (IFIs), donors, and foreign conservationists.Footnote ²⁷ Several government officials and other tourism sector stakeholders consistently argued for the need to reduce “mass tourism” or to discourage “backpackers,” stating that “for sustainable development, we need to move to a model of tourists who spend more money every day they spend in the country.”Footnote ²⁸ Though the government prioritizes high-end tourism, most tourists continue to be from within African countries (partly because of a very open visa system). While the focus on business tourism and the rise of prices to visit gorillas has increased the spending per day and the price of hotels in Kigali (with the government retaining a preference for not having hotel rooms available for less than US$100 per day), tourists still spend much less on average than in Mauritius or Botswana.Footnote ²⁹

For the Rwandan government, the desire to promote sustainable ecotourism motivated investment in increasing the exclusivity of the experience of visiting mountain gorillas and the national parks. Substantial investments in marketing through the Kwita Izina gorilla naming ceremony and visits from celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres, as well as Arsenal and Paris Saint German footballers, have enhanced the global reputation of gorilla trekking in Rwanda. In 2022, the US$13.4 million Ellen DeGeneres Campus of the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund was opened. As of October 2024, the Campus has hosted more than 78,000 visitors and conducted 120 trainings while restoring an ecosystem home to over 50 bird species.

Kagame’s RPF has mobilized supporters—including IFIs, celebrities, Western governments, and foreign investors—to enhance Rwanda’s position as a luxury destination. However, the centerpiece of the strategy is Rwanda’s mountain gorillas. The government has raised prices regularly to enhance the “luxury” appeal of visiting gorillas. The most recent price increase was made in 2017 from US$750 to US$1,500 (for both Rwandan nationals and visitors). This was after a first price increase five years earlier (World Bank 2023). The government claimed there was no effect on visitors to the park, stating that “the decision was made to make the most of our most prized asset and to preserve gorillas and wildlife towards a sustainable future.”Footnote ³⁰ Most ecotourism lodges near national parks (where visitors stay) are under foreign control. High-end lodges near all national parks are owned by foreign investors including Singita, One & Only, and Wilderness Safaris (also in Botswana), and charge approximately US$15,000 USD per night.

Unlike Botswana and Mauritius, there has been some success in “going beyond gorillas” and adding to more high-end tourist attractions in Rwanda to enhance the country’s image as a luxury destination. Alongside other wildlife attractions (which receive far fewer visits than the gorillas), the Rwandan government invested in making Kigali a MICE hub. Kigali is being promoted as a sports and global events hub (already hosting the Tour du Rwanda, the Basketball Africa League and Kigali Peace Marathon). Several high-profile global events including international climate summits, a FIFA Congress and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) have been held in Kigali in the last few years. Substantial infrastructure investments have been prioritized to make Rwanda a MICE destination including investments in the Kigali Convention center, a new airport, and the government-owned airline, Rwandair. These investments have contributed to spiralling national debt. However, transforming Rwanda into a high-end MICE destination is presented as being central to sustaining the RPF’s hub-oriented strategy in the long term.Footnote ³¹

For the last decade, Rwanda has primarily focused on “only prioritising tourists who spend money,” with one senior RDB official stating, “we have no interest in backpackers who spend no money.”Footnote ³² Rwanda’s tourism revenue sharing program (TRSP) has been lauded for its support of communities around national parks, allocating 10 percent of all tourism revenues to support nearby communities. Yet the TRSP is criticized on several counts, including focusing investments on infrastructure development rather than on creating livelihood development programs for the population while underemployment remains above 60 percent nationally (Snyman et al. Reference Snyman, Fitzgerald, Bakteeva, Ngoga and Mugabukomeye2023; National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda [NISR] 2024). With the increasing emphasis on high-end tourism and driving up standards in hotels, there are also few possibilities for domestic linkages and increased evidence of leakages (Behuria and Goodfellow Reference Behuria and Goodfellow2019), as is also observed in Botswana and Mauritius.

As has been repeatedly argued within literature on Rwanda’s urban growth, most Rwandan youth are precariously employed in informal sectors. The continued persistence of informal employment in urban areas works directly against the government’s attempt to present Kigali as a pristine financial and tourism hub for the continent (Shearer Reference Shearer2020). In 2019, the tourism sector employed slightly more than 164,000 Rwandans, still only 4 percent of Rwanda’s labor force. Managers at many luxury hotels are from neighboring countries.Footnote ³³ Though tourism training institutes exist, training institutes do not provide graduates with the skills demanded by employers in the sector (Behuria and Goodfellow Reference Behuria and Goodfellow2019).

The dangerous allure of high-end tourism strategies

Tourism growth is often presented as a solution to economic crises. This was particularly evident after the 2008/9 financial crisis (Milano and Koens Reference Milano and Koens2022; Bianchi and Milano Reference Bianchi and Milano2024). Yet tourism because of its reliance on foreign sources of capital is actually particularly vulnerable to any economic crisis associated with contemporary globalization. The Covid-19 pandemic prompted many to call for new thinking about how tourism might sustain economic recovery or how the tourism sector itself could be better prepared for future crises (Lew et al. Reference Lew, Cheer, Haywood, Brouder and Salaza2020; Kennell et al. Reference Kennell, Mohanty, Sharma and Hassan2022). Though most of these discussions occurred in North American and European countries, debates about how to revitalize tourism were also taking place in African countries. This article shows how the prioritization of luxury tourism strategies came into question in Africa’s fastest growing countries. In all three countries, luxury tourism was characterized by increased inequality, limited employment opportunities, and a consolidation of profits among foreign actors (or a small group of domestic firms). In Mauritius and Botswana, adapting tourism policies meant that governments navigated the pressures of powerful transnational coalitions of actors who benefited and advocated for luxury tourism strategies. The Rwandan government, however, has chosen not to depart from its focus on luxury tourism.

“Democratic” Mauritian and Botswana governments (with weaker ruling parties) have proven to be more flexible in adapting policy because of the increasing political salience of economic inequality, as well as the threat that they would lose their hold on power. In Rwanda, however, a long-horizon orientation and commitment to prioritizing luxury tourism (in the hope that it will deliver long-term benefits) has been prioritized. Since the RPF has centralized control over political and economic decision-making and faces little threat from opponents, the government has shown little willingness to adapt its tourism strategy. This example operates in sharp contrast to a range of literature on African political economy that has highlighted the developmental benefits associated with centralized control over political and economic decision-making, long-horizon orientation of political parties, and high implementation capacity (Booth and Golooba-Mutebi Reference Booth and Golooba-Mutebi2012; Hickey and Sen Reference Hickey and Sen2024).

The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the dangers of relying on an increasingly niche high-end tourism strategy. Most countries had already realized the limitations of a luxury tourism strategy, which only exacerbates domestic inequalities and does not create adequate employment. There are few signs that luxury tourism is the answer to providing employment and foreign exchange for vulnerable developing economies. It is only likely to increase dependence on foreign investors and travellers. As countries have begun to reimagine their tourism strategies after the Covid-19 pandemic, it is necessary to ensure diversification (of tourism markets and offerings) rather than niche specialization as the mantra if they are to reduce their reliance on luxury travellers, as well as North American and European markets.