Compare and Contrast
I received an interesting email yesterday, from a Kyrgyz student studying abroad who has been set an assignment to compare the tourism strategies of two countries: New Zealand and Kyrgyzstan.
When I first read that I recalled an essay that I appeared on an examination paper that I once sat, to compare and contrast the Theology of the book of Genesis with that of the book of Hosea. I quickly passed over that question and moved onto the next … thank goodness I had a choice … five questions out of twelve … let’s hope that they are not all as frightening as that one!
There were lots of problems with that question as I saw it. It struck me as an easy question to set, choose any two of the sixty six books of the Bible and compare and contrast their Theology. Whereas I might have been happier if this was a “course paper”, where you would have time to prepare, to read up and research the issues, develop your argument and amass your supporting quotations, I felt that it was a difficult question to answer … in an examination … under examination conditions. You would have to know both books particularly well. The book of Genesis, for example, seems to present many different, (and even conflicting), images of God, although Hosea, at least, presents a more unified image. However, it wasn’t clear what sort of answer the examiner had in mind when they set the question and it struck me as if the examiner had a clear idea of what they expected. I thought that if I appeared to go off at a tangent, then I risked getting a very low score.
So, was this a similar case? Had the tutor simply chosen two countries out of the hundred and ninety five countries in the world, (the 192 member states of the UN, plus Kosovo, Taiwan and the Vatican State), and coupled them together to make a class assignment? (At least it was an assignment and not an examination question set “out of the blue”).
In the past, for example, I have seen one academic article which attempted to draw comparisons between less likely candidates: the Maldives and Kyrgyzstan. Although at first glance it seems very strange to couple a string of islands in the Indian Ocean with the mountainous Kyrgyz Republic but, on the other hand, it’s true that both are small; both are reliant to some extent on tourism, (a far greater extent in the Maldives than in Kyrgyzstan); both are remote and distant from potential markets, and both are facing problems related to climate change.
Here, the comparison that is most often made is between Kyrgyzstan and Turkey. There are several reasons for this, including the presence in Kyrgyzstan of a strong Turkish contribution in the academic field, most notably in the Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University. I have seen articles, for example, comparing and contrasting the resort zone on Lake Issyk Kul with Turkey’s Mediterranean Coast resorts. One of the reasons the authorities like to look to Turkey is that there is a highly centralised system of control in Turkey: including licensing of tour firms, guides and transport. Although there is a lot that we can learn from Turkey, there are important differences between the countries which, in my opinion, help to mitigate against the tendency to adopt wholesale from the Turkish experience. Primarily, amongst those are the: fact that Turkey is much closer to its European markets, has far more scope for attracting tourists for Beach Tourism than Kyrgyzstan does, has a season that lasts much longer than the Kyrgyz season – indeed, one which lasts all year round.
As it happens, it struck me that the choice of pairing New Zealand and Kyrgyzstan for a comparison was inspired. It was an unusual choice, in that these two countries are not normally put together but it occurred to me that there are a lot of points that the two countries share in common, including:
- they are are of a comparable size;
- they are both mountainous – especially the South Island;
- Agriculture and, in particular, sheep rearing play an important role in the history and economy of both countries;
- they have a similar history in that they came to the attention of the West, (e.g. Europe), relatively recently, have an indigenous people with a distinct culture, have experienced periods of “colonization” and post colonial development;
- Tourism is also important to both countries;
- they are both relatively distant from their target markets – although Kyrgyzstan does have a wide hinterland … hence the development of tourism which centered on attracting tourists from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Russian Siberia to Lake Issyk Kul .
Indeed, I have commented several times in the past about how New Zealanders seem to feel an affinity with Kyrgyzstan … many of them have told me how they find the place so “recognizable” and reminiscent of “home”. Of course, there are also considerable points of difference between the two … including, for example:
- Kyrgyzstan’s location in the heart of the Eurasian continent and straddling the Great Silk Road trading route gave it a greater exposure to a variety of cultures and a more central place and role in history;
- the rate and nature of exposure to outside influences;
- the rate and extent of investment and development – economic, social and cultural;
Those are just for starters and I was sure that the student, her classmates and their tutor could have brainstormed a lot more of both similarities and differences.
As it happens, however, it wasn’t actually a case of an inspired choice by the tutor … the class have been told to compare the strategy of New Zealand with that of their own country – hence, in this particular case with the Kyrgyz Republic.
However, next time I am in a meeting where people are citing examples with Turkey, I must remember to challenge this and ask: “Why do we always compare ourselves to Turkey? Why not other countries? Why not, for example, New Zealand?”
That should provide food for thought.
Bishkek