1. Introduction Geoeconomics gained great importance in the sys- tem of modern science, because of the develop- ment of global economic processes, participation in which determines the success of the national economies, interstate organizations and individual businesses, ranging from large multinational cor- porations to small and medium-sized enterprises. However, tourism (including international) was not part of the problem field of modern geoeconomics. Lack of research on geoeconomic topics in tourism restricts adequate assessment of the main factors influencing the development of tourism in Belarus. One of these factors is the geographical position between Russia and the European Union. The state tourism development programs emphasize that Belarus is located in the center of Europe, which al- lows us to develop intense tourist flows. However, the actions taken by the state to develop tourism do not give the expected results, and the performance indicators of the tourism development programs are mostly not achieved. At the same time the na- tional management system in Belarus is not taking the geoeconomic potential of tourism into account. Therefore, the aim of this article is to evaluate the geoeconomic position of Belarus as a tourist desti- nation and to justify the potential base vector of the future tourism policy. 2. The content of geoeconomics in tourism The place of geoeconomics in the system of mod- ern science is defined in terms of its development as a separate sphere of scientific knowledge. The Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2016, 6(4), 15–26 DOI 10.4467/24512249JG.16.023.5810 Geo-economIc PoSITIon of BelaruS aS a TourIST deSTInaTIon Aliaksandr Tarasionak Department of Tourism Management, Belarusian State Economic University, Swerdlowa 7, 220050 Minsk, Belarus, e-mail: a.tarasionak@gmail.com citation Tarasionak A., 2016, Geo-economic position of Belarus as a tourist destination, Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 6(4), 15–26. abstract The paper summarizes the theoretical foundations of geoeconomics in tourism industry. The current status of tourism industry in Belarus is analyzed. Belarus is behind in its development in comparison to the tourism economies of the European countries. Overview of the countries in the polarized world tourism market is performed. Belarus is located in the geoeconomic periphery of the tourism market. The paper justifies the strategy aimed at country’s transition from the periphery to the semi-periphery of the world tourism market. Key words geoeconomics, destination, geoeconomics of tourism, tourism in Belarus. 16 Aliaksandr Tarasionak historical aspect of the appearance and develop- ment of geoeconomics was analyzed by E. Haliżak (2012). The goal of his research was not the periodi- zation of the history of geoeconomics, but the evo- lution of its content. On the basis of his research, we distinguish the main stages of the formation of geo- economics as a science: 1. Mercantilism and European colonialism (17th-19th centuries). Main concepts and effective econom- ic instruments were introduced to impact the ex- ternal and internal markets. The economic aspect started to compete with the political, religious and military goals on the governmental manage- ment level. 2. US economic imperialism, neo-colonialism and international economic integration (end 19th- end 20th centuries). A number of theoretical concepts was formulated: geoeconomics, international competitiveness, globalization, etc. Economic mechanisms have shown their practical superior- ity compared to the political, military and ideo- logical instruments. We can also see it from the results of the two world wars and the “cold war”. 3. Turbo capitalism (1990s.). Geoeconomics emerged as a separate science and immediately became an important basis for developing strat- egies for the national economies. Currently, geo- economics is seen as a successor of geopolitics. The reason for that is the transition of global in- terests of the regional integration structures and major countries from the military and politics to the economic sphere. The term “geoeconomics” was first mentioned in 1926 in the article “A science of geonomics” by Whit- beck published in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers (Whitbeck, 1926). However, the essence of the scientific sphere (geoeconomics, or geonomics) defined by Whitbeck in principle cor- responds to the modern economic geography. The modern concept of geoeconomics was for- mulated by the consultant of the US National Se- curity Council and the US Department of State Ed- ward Luttwak, who saw it as a new paradigm of the foreign policy, which came after the era of the “cold war” (Luttwak, 1990). He developed this concept in the framework of the system analysis of the concept “US – rest of the world.” K. Jean and P. Savona (Жан, Савона, 1997) considered geoeconomics as a sci- ence that studies different aspects of international competition, where the protagonist is the state, and the main task of geoeconomics is to develop strat- egies that will allow the state to provide “home” companies and “home” economic system as a whole maximum competitive advantage in comparison to “foreign” companies and economies. The same point of view share the representatives of the Russian school of geoeconomics Dergachev and Kochetov. According to W.A. Dergachev (Дергачев, 2002), geoeconomics is a science of the national develop- ment strategy aimed at achieving global or regional advantage using primarily economic instruments. Geoeconomics is regarded as a modern geopolitics that defines the world economic integration of the country and the creation of competitive regional economic conditions influenced by globalization and regionalization. Russian scientist E.G. Kochetov (Кочетов, 2010) formulated the definition of geoeconomics, em- phasizing its global aspect, and determined that geoeconomics appears in three forms: conceptual views on interpretation of the global world, a system of global economic attributes and economic rela- tions, and a concept of political science. According to geoeconomics as a concept success of a state is determined by inclusion of its national economy and economic entities in the international economic reproduction and its participation in the formation and distribution of the world‘s income on the basis of advanced geoeconomic technologies. Tourism was left out of the problem field of the modern geoeconomics research, despite the fact that it is a form of international economic relations, regional development factor and the most dynamic socio-economic phenomenon of the 20th-21st centu- ries along with urbanization, industrialization and in- formatization. Further evidence gives statistics (UN- WTO…, 2015): international tourism ranks fourth in the world export after fuel, export of chemical prod- ucts and food, and exceeds export of automobile and light industry. Countries and regions are involved in competi- tion in a variety of industrial systems (energy, high- tech, food, raw materials, labor and social sphere, financial and investment sector, military industry, etc.). One of them is a tourism system, which is formed by tourists’ and visitors’ flows, expenditures, seasonal labor, investments in the hospitality indus- try, and informational flows regarding destinations, tourist services, tourist goods, etc. According to Bieger’s model (Bieger, 2004) the structure of the tourism system consists of four sub- systems: the tourist demand, intermediaries (travel agencies, reservation systems), transportation, and destinations. Destinations are places to meet recre- ational demands, and subsystems of intermediaries (retailers and transport) provide them with a direct link to consumers (demand centers). The tourism system is open and interconnected with external economic, social, political, environmental and tech- nological systems. Geo-economic position of Belarus as a tourist destination 17 From the point of view of geoeconomics, the main beneficiary of the tourism system is a destina- tion. Destination is a specific target object for a par- ticular geographic group of tourists. The research on destinations was developing in 1970–1990-ies. (Kas- par, 1982, 1991; Laws, 1995; Althof, 1996). A compre- hensive definition of this concept was formulated at the beginning of the 21st century by T. Bieger (2002), who summarized the existing points of view on this issue. According to Bieger a destination is a geo- graphical area (location, region, country), which is the purpose of travel for visitors (or segment of visitors), has the necessary infrastructure for accom- modation, nourishment, entertainment, informative and recreational activities, and is a subject of compe- tition in the tourism market and a strategic business object. Based on these research premises the geoeco- nomics of tourism can be defined as a science of spatial and economic relations, which involve des- tinations that have a goal to successfully compete for consumers of tourist products and to maximize income from tourism. Functioning of the tourism economic system leads to the formation of the tourism economic space. The world tourism market is characterized by a polarized structure, which includes individual re- gions or typological groups of countries that differ in their level of tourism development, tourism and rec- reational specialization, dynamics of development processes of the tourism industry and intensity of the tourist flows. Development of a tourist destination depends on its inclusion in the global tourist, investment and innovation flows, i.e. geoeconomic position of the country. The polarization of the world tour- ism market is an objective process of forming the world‘s travel centers and zones with different levels of concentration of tourism demand, capital and in- novations. In principle, the whole world is a global geoeconomic system that includes centers of tour- ism development, semi-periphery and periphery. The position of a country as a destination in the geo- tourism space largely determines the dynamics of its development. The further away is the destination from the world centers of tourism market, the slower is its development. Here we do not mean the physi- cal distance between a theoretical world center of tourism and a destination, but its status in the hierar- chical structure of the global tourism industry. The polarized world system of tourism industry includes center, semi-periphery and two periph- eral zones (Пирожник, 1996; Александрова, 2002). The model of Pirozhnik reflects the polarization of the global tourist market with 22 mesoregions of UNWTO. The model of Alexandrova shows the polar- ization of the tourism market based on the typologi- cal groups of countries and approach of the world- systems analysis (Wallerstein, 1987). The centers of tourism development are hubs, where the main tourism demand is formed and sat- isfied, service standards are formulated, and tourist infrastructure and flows of visitors are concentrated. Semi-periphery and periphery are progressively ap- plying the hospitality standards, innovative technol- ogies of creation and promotion of tourist products as well as consumer preferences. The application speed reduces from the semi-periphery to the deep periphery. The research of I.I. Pirozhnik dating mid-1990s determined that Central and Eastern Europe, and therefore also Belarus, are in the peripheral zone of extensive development that is also located in a close proximity to the centers of international tourism development (Пирожник, 1996). The study showed that with an improved socio-economic situ- ation, tourism market liberalization, improvement of investment climate, enhanced exchange with the countries of Central and Western Europe, the me- soregion of Central and Eastern Europe will become an intensive development zone, i.e. experience tran- sition from the periphery to the semi-periphery. Now the situation has changed. The countries of Central and Eastern European were developing im- plementing different socio-economic and business models. The mesoregion, which once was homoge- neous due to similar conditions and mechanisms to reform national economies, lost its uniformity because of multi-directional integration processes (east and west). On the one hand, the countries of Central Europe entered the European Union, and on the other hand, the Eurasian Economic Union was formed in the east of the region. 3. Tourism in Belarus Belarus is behind in developing its tourism indus- try in comparison to the neighboring countries. Relatively weak development of tourism business in Belarus is due to the permanent postponement of economic reforms and liberalization of the national business environment (Nikitsin, 2009). The development of tourism in Belarus is char- acterized by both positive and negative processes. Among the positive processes are increase in the number of accommodation facilities and the num- ber of tourist companies, business development in the area of rural tourism. However, in recent years, we can witness reduction of occupancy rate, balance 18 Aliaksandr Tarasionak deficit of tourism, increased dependence on the Rus- sian market. The following analysis of the tourism sector is based on the national statistics (Туризм и туристические…, 2016). The number of enterprises in the tourism indus- try in the period from 2000 to 2015 has significantly increased: the number of travel agencies tripled and equaled 1364 businesses, the number of accommo- dation facilities (hotels, resorts, holiday homes, tour- ist centers, etc.) increased by 1.7. The peak of foreign visits to Belarus was observed in 2013 and equaled 6.24 million visitors, of which nearly 4 million tourists were from Russian and 2 million visitors were EU citizens. In 2015 the statics shows the negative trend: the country was visited by 4.36 million people, including 2.6 million tourists from Russia and 1.3 million visitors from the EU. We can see changes in the structure of in-bound tour- ism: if in 2005 the flow of visitors from EU countries and Russia was almost the same, in 2015 the number of visitors from Russia was twice as big. The annual number of guests staying in ac- commodation facilities in 2010-2014 has slightly changed and at the end of the period equaled ca 2.6 million. In 2015, this number experienced a further decline and equaled 2.37 million visitors, of which 60% were Belarusians, 6% of visitors were from the EU, and 34% of tourists were from Russia and other countries. The agrotourism has recently become the fastest growing segment of Belarusian tourism market. The reason for that was the liberalization of economic relations in this sector, i.e. the declarative principle of market entrance, simplified (symbolic) taxation and low-cost credits. As a result, the number of farmhouses increased from 34 in 2006 to 2263 in 2015. The agrotourism market maintains positive dynamics. Only 56 out of 539 hotels and other accommoda- tion facilities, which is only10% of the total amount, are certified. Occupancy rate in 2015 decreased to 29% in comparison to 34% in 2014 and 40% in 2013. It is obvious that such an occupancy rate makes the hotel industry unattractive for investors, and there- fore its further development is impossible without any incentives. The table below (table 1) gives in- formation on the accommodation capacity, which indicates a low level of development of the tour- ism industry in Belarus in comparison to the other countries. Tourism is not among geoeconomic priorities in Belarus and is not considered as a tool to improve the geoeconomic situation of the country (Дайнеко, 2011). Tourism, tourism industry and tourism com- plex are out of scope of research on the level of the national economy: the tourism sector is not consid- ered a part of economic complexes of the national economic system and external potential (Шимов et al., 2012). Tourism is only fragmentary mentioned in the text of the National strategy for sustainable socio-economic development of the Republic of Belarus until 2020 and is not accompanied by any economic estimates or projections (Национальная стратегия, 2004). And this is done despite the fact that the index of tourist activity of the population can act as an important indicator of the quality of life in the country. The new National strategy for sus- tainable socio-economic development until 2030 has a section «Tourism» (Национальная стратегия, 2015) but the figures however are far from the pa- rameters of sustainable development of this sec- tor. That is the result of underestimating tourism as a socio-economic and geoeconomic factor of the country›s development. On the national level tour- ism is not used as a compensation tool to reduce the effects of the currency crisis or the negative influence of the economic sanctions. which are geoeconomic instruments. For example. the devaluation of the na- tional currency makes the national tourism product more affordable and can be considered as a method of stimulating tourism. However. during the devalu- ation of the Belarusian currency in 2011, 2012, 2014 Tab. 1. Accommodation capacity in number of beds per 1000 inhabitants Country 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Armenia 7.85 9.25 9.74 10.23 10.68 Belarus 2.70 2.81 3.06 3.03 3.20 Germany 21.79 21.49 21.87 21.95 22.09 Georgia 4.26 4.8 5.91 7.58 7.41 Latvia 12.02 13.10 13.05 13.33 12.68 Lithuania 7.69 7.92 8.58 9.07 9.21 Poland 5.82 6.39 6.72 7.09 7.37 Russia 3.39 3.69 3.98 4.32 4.74 Source: Yearbook of Tourism Statistics, 2015. Geo-economic position of Belarus as a tourist destination 19 and 2015 no marketing actions were taken to pro- mote Belarus as a destination on the foreign mar- kets. Other examples include lack of administrative support in stimulating inbound shopping tourism as a compensation for Russian sanctions in relation to EU products. and a failure to promote sales of mo- tor fuels produced in Belarus in the border areas as a compensation for an unfavorable export price of oil products. On the contrary. restrictions on the fre- quency of traveling abroad imposed on personal ve- hicles for the citizens of Belarus led to the country’s economic losses from lower fuel sales in the border regions. Western sanctions in response to the Rus- sian foreign policy led to losses in the Belarusian economy. which could have been compensated with the effect of “invisible export” of tourism. 4. Position of Belarus in the polarized tourism market According to the previously mentioned models of tourism market polarization a country can be identi- fied in a polarized structure of world tourism space as one of the 22 UNWTO mesoregions or as one of the typological groups of countries based on the world-systems analysis. However. given the network structure of the geoeconomic space and the inter- nal polarization within mesoregions or typological groups of countries. it is problematic to determine geoeconomic position of individual countries based on these models. In this regard. we propose an alter- native methodological approach. which allows de- termining zones in the “center – periphery” system. which are not solid regions. but network formations consisting of individual countries. For structuring the international tourism market space we will use key performance indicators that determine the prospects of tourism development as a form of consumption. The basic factors affect- ing tourism development are. first of all. the welfare of the population. which determines the qualitative and quantitative parameters of the tourism demand. and. secondly. effective national economic system that provides favorable conditions for realization of the recreational needs by assigning the available resources for the development of public infrastruc- ture. safety and investments in the tourism industry. These factors are reflected in the index of GDP per capita. The level of tourism development depends on business opportunities in the hospitality industry. i.e. opportunities to develop services. diversify. expand. and ultimately increase the tourism attractiveness of the country as a destination. As a result. the level of tourism development. including domestic and in- bound. is reflected in the development of accommo- dation facilities. It takes time and intensive capital in- vestments to build accommodation facilities; hence they are created. where tourist flows and business environment are sustainable. Ultimately accommo- dation becomes one of the major service providers to create an integrated tourism product. Therefore. the development of tourism infrastructure and the importance of the tourism industry for the national economy is well reflected in such indicator as avail- able accommodation capacity (bed-places per 1000 inhabitants). Thus. the inclusion of countries in the “center”. “semi-periphery” or “periphery” group is based on the analysis of GDP per capita and available capac- ity of accommodation facilities. Data on population. GDP and GDP per capita were taken from UN Human Development Report (Human Development Report, 2014). and data on accommodation capacity from the bulletin of UNWTO (Yearbook of Tourism Statis- tics, 2015). The analysis of these indicators allowed us ranking the countries and identifying leaders and outsiders of the world tourism market. To differen- tiate resulted continual series we used the method of constructing cumulative series based on popula- tion for both types of ranked series. i.e. series show- ing the difference in the level of GDP per capita. and series indicating the accommodation capacity. This manipulation was done in order to apply the Pareto rule to determine the typology criteria. Based on the Pareto rule the leaders were determined among the countries. which in each of the continual series ac- cumulated around 20% of the world population. It helped to determine the thresholds for GDP per cap- ita (18 000 US dollars) and the number of bed-places per 1000 inhabitants (9.7 beds per 1000 inhabitants). Thresholds allowed dividing the countries with dif- ferent combinations of analyzed indicators into 4 groups (fig. 1). Countries allocated to the group “center” include major leaders of the world tourism market and small- er players with a well developed tourism industry (attachment 1). In the graph they are concentrated in the upper right quadrant. where GDP per capita is more than 18 thousand dollars and accommoda- tion capacity is more than 9.7 bed-places per 1000 inhabitants. The group “semi-periphery” includes leading countries of the world. that are major play- ers. successfully creating tourism infrastructure. and that have a great weight in shaping global tourism demand and developing domestic tourism (attach- ment 2). Countries in this group are very close to the “center” (“close semi-periphery”) and may eventually be included in this group. Countries in the “distant 20 Aliaksandr Tarasionak semi-periphery” group are mainly developing coun- tries that are strong tourist destinations and that are successfully satisfying domestic tourism demand (attachment 3). The peripheral zone ( lower left quadrant) includes countries with different levels of socio-economic development. scale of the econ- omy and economic structure (attachment 4). Some countries. such as China and Brazil. are considered to be strong players in the global tourism market. but they also have a strong imbalance in the devel- opment of the tourism sector. which means that its development is not proportional and relatively small opposed to the giant economies of these countries. In principle. all countries in this group are character- ized by one common feature – tourism development does not meet qualitative and quantitative param- eters of the national economy. This group includes also Belarus. Polarized geoeconomic structure of the world tourism market with its uneven spatial and economic processes is presented in figure 2. 5. Perspective directions of tourism policy in Belarus Position of Belarus in the polarized hierarchical struc- ture of the global tourism market represents an ob- jective reason for introducing changes in Belarusian tourism policy. It should be aimed at strengthening international relations with the western neighbors. This statement is based on the following logic. The level of economic and political integration of Belarus and Russia is higher than integration processes with the European Union. Therefore. the most accessible regional center for innovation in the tourism sector for Belarus is Moscow. Economic and political inte- gration has become one of the most important fac- tors (along with language. economic proximity and common culture) that lead to the implementation of Russian approaches (e.g. organization of tour- ism business and legal framework) in the Belarusian practice. However those approaches and innova- tions are coming to Russia from the centers of the global economy. Thus. the peripheral position of Be- larus towards the main Russian market determines the later implementation of innovations. Though Belarus is closer to the EU geographically. from the geoeconomic point of view. it is more dis- tant from the centers of tourism development than Russia. and even further away from Poland. Lithuania and Latvia. This implies that Belarus has difficulties in competing with these countries for tourists using acquired benefits. which are the main factor of com- petitiveness at the present stage of development of the world economy. In general geoeconomic posi- tion of Belarus today can be described as “peripher- al” in spite of the declared geographical position in the center of Europe. Transit position of the country Fig. 1. Groups of countries according to accommodation capacity and GDP per capita Source: The graph is built based on the statistical data from: Yearbook of Tourism Statistics (2015) and Human Development Report (2014). Geo-economic position of Belarus as a tourist destination 21 on the border with the European Union is an im- portant prerequisite for improving geoeconomic situation of the country by making a transition from the “periphery” to the “close semi-periphery.” This re- quires an open tourism policy and liberalization of the business sector in tourism that would speed up the flow of innovations and investments in tourism and hospitality bypassing the “intermediaries” from the “semi-periphery”. 6. Summary Synthesis of theoretical foundations of geoeconom- ics. research on destination topics and concepts of the world tourism market polarization made it pos- sible to determine the geoeconomics of tourism as a science of spatial and economic relations. the subject of which are destinations with the ultimate goal of successful competition and maximization of income from tourism. Geoeconomic approach al- lows looking at the tourism market as a spatial hier- archical system. in which each country has a definite place either central. peripheral or semi-peripheral. Changing geoeconomic position of the country by moving from the periphery to the semi-periphery or from the semi-periphery to the center can be one of the goals of the state tourism policy. Assessment of the country’s position in the polarized tourism space will help to determine the right strategies to achieve this goal. Evaluation of position of a destination in the world polarized space can be based on the typology of countries according to their position in the system “center - periphery”. By structuring the world tourism market based on two key indicators – GDP per cap- ita and available accommodation capacity – it is possible to identify “center”, “close semi-periphery”, “distant semi-periphery” and “periphery” groups. Belarus is in the “periphery” zone despite its central location in Europe. Based on above-mentioned fac- tors. the perspective strategy for Belarus is tourism integration with the EU. Otherwise Belarus as a tour- ist destination will be on the “sidelines” of the world tourist traffic. references Althof W., 1996, Incoming-Tourismus, Oldenbourg, Muenchen- Wien. Bieger T., 2002, Management von Destinationen, Oldenbourg, Muenchen-Wien. Bieger T., 2004, Tourismuslehre – ein Grundriss, Haupt Verlag, Bern-Stuttgart-Wien. Haliżak E., 2012, Geneza geoekonomii – ideowe i materialne przesłanki, [in:] E. Haliżak (ed.) Geoekonomia, Wydawnict- wo Naukowe SCHOLAR, Warszawa, 17–29. Human Development Report 2014. Sustaining Human Prog- ress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience, 2014, UNDP. New York. Kaspar C., 1982, Die Fremdenverkehrslehre im Grundriss, Haupt, Bern. Kaspar C., 1991, Die Tourismuslehre im Grundriss, Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern-Stutgart. Laws E., 1995. Tourist Destination Management: Issues. Analysis and Policies, Routledge. London. Luttwak E., 1990, From Geopolitics to Geo-Economics: Logic of Conflict. Grammar of Commerce, The National Interest, 20, 17–23. Fig. 2. Polarized structure of the world tourism market, 2013 Source: The graph is built based on the fig. 1. 22 Aliaksandr Tarasionak Nikitsin V., 2009, Tourismuspolitik und Tourismusplanung in Transformationsländern – untersucht am Beispiel von Bela- rus und Litauen. Paderborner geographische Studien zu Tourismusforschung und Destinationsmanagement, Uni- versität Paderborn, Paderborn. UNWTO World Tourism Barometer and Statistical Annex. Vol. 13. June 2015., 2015, UNWTO. Madrid. Wallerstein I., 1987, World-Systems Analysis, [in:] A. Giddens, J. Turner (eds.), Social Theory Today, Polity Press, Cam- bridge, 309–324. Whitbeck R., 1926, A science of geonomics, Annals of the As- sociation of American Geographers, 16(4), 117–128. Yearbook of Tourism Statistics. Data 2009 – 2013, 2015, UN- WTO, Madrid. Александрова А.Ю., 2002, Структура туристского рынка, Пресс-Соло, Москва. Дайнеко А.Е., 2011, Геоэкономические приоритеты Республики Беларусь, Беларус. Навука, Минск. Дергачев В.А., 2002, Геоэкономика (Современная геополитика), ВИРА-Р, Киев. Жан К., Савона П., 1997, Геоэкономика: Господство экономического пространства, Ad Marginem, Москва. Кочетов Э.Г., 2010, Геоэкономика. Освоение мирового экономического пространства, Норма, Москва. Национальная стратегия устойчивого социально- экономического развития Республики Беларусь на период до 2020 г., 2004, Юнипак, Минск. Национальная стратегия устойчивого социально- экономического развития Республики Беларусь на период до 2030г., 2015, Экономический бюллетень НИЭИ Министерства экономики Республики Беларусь, 4(214), 6–99. Пирожник И.И., 1996, Международный туризм в мировом хозяйстве, Белгосуниверситет, Минск. Туризм и туристические ресурсы в Республике Беларусь, 2016, http://www.belstat.gov.by/ofitsialnaya-statisti- ka/solialnaya-sfera/turizm/publikatsii_9/index_5110/, [30.06.2016] Шимов В.Н., Александрович Я.М., Богданович А.В., Бобровская Ж.В., Бондарь А.В., Боровик Л.С., Быков А.А., Валевич Р.П., Воложинец В.В., Дорина Е.Б., Жудро М.М., Киреева Е.Ф., Крюков Л.М., Полещук И.И., Рогач П.И., Румянцева О.И., Седун А.М., Соколовский Н.К., Сорокина Т.В., Шимова О.С., Шмарловская Г.А., 2012, Национальная экономика Беларус, БГЭУ, Минск. Geo-economic position of Belarus as a tourist destination 23 Attachment 1. Countries included in the group “center” of the geoeconomic tourism space Country GDP. million dollars 1 Popula- tion. million people2 Accommoda- tion capacity. beds2 Bed-places per 1000 inhabitants2 GDP per capita. thou- sand dollars1 Rank according to the number of bed-places per 1000 inhab- itants Rank accord- ing to GDP per capita Australia 985077 23.3 632257 27.1 42.3 36 16 Austria 366682 8.5 601483 70.8 43.1 10 13 Andorra 3163 0.1 34062 340.6 31.6 1 31 Antigua and Barbuda 1671 0.09 15525 172.5 19.7 2 57 Argentina 890259 41.4 634874 15.3 21.5 62 52 Bahamas 9082 0.4 29672 74.2 22.7 9 47 Bahrain 52855 1.3 15501 11.9 40.7 70 21 Belgium 438428 11.1 181231 16.3 39.5 61 23 Brunei Darussalam 28432 0.4 4648 11.6 71.1 71 6 Hungary 221460 10 173156 17.3 22.1 58 48 Germany 3470588 82.7 1827060 22.1 42.0 49 17 Hong Kong 362095 7.2 194118 27.0 50.3 37 12 Greece 281840 11.1 773214 69.7 25.4 11 41 Denmark 232534 5.6 76458 13.7 41.5 64 19 Israel 235620 7.7 128707 16.7 30.6 60 33 Ireland 197427 4.6 157284 34.2 42.9 27 14 Iceland 11566 0.3 23738 79.1 38.6 7 24 Spain 1463186 46.9 1874896 40.0 31.2 21 32 Italy 2053748 61 2233823 36.6 33.7 25 29 Canada 1428698 35.2 1888855 53.7 40.6 15 22 Cyprus 32668 1.1 83274 75.7 29.7 8 34 Cuba 225000 11.3 111904 9.9 19.9 76 56 Latvia 44581 2.1 26004 12.4 21.2 68 53 Liechtenstein 3500 0.037 978 26.4 94.6 39 2 Luxembourg 43294 0.5 15012 30.0 86.6 30 3 Malaysia 650341 29.7 523818 17.6 21.9 57 50 Malta 11359 0.4 37814 94.5 28.4 6 37 Monaco 5748 0.036 4642 128.9 159.7 4 1 Netherlands 713210 16.8 244145 14.5 42.5 63 15 New Zealand 145620 4.5 221978 49.3 32.4 19 30 Norway 314290 5 187243 37.4 62.9 24 7 Portugal 266018 10.6 297962 28.1 25.1 34 42 San Marino 1940 0.032 1680 52.5 60.6 16 8 Saudi Arabia 1462781 28.8 708556 24.6 50.8 44 11 Seychelles 2315 0.1 6490 64.9 23.2 12 46 Singapore 385965 5.4 137545 25.5 71.5 41 5 Slovakia 140454 5.5 92261 16.8 25.5 59 40 Slovenia 57527 2.1 49351 23.5 27.4 47 38 United Kingdom 2189191 63.1 1571120 24.9 34.7 42 28 USA 16279966 320.1 12316358 38.5 50.9 22 10 Trinidad and Tobago 37812 1.3 17105 13.2 29.1 65 36 Turkey 1360708 74.9 729747 9.7 18.2 78 58 Finland 205762 5.4 123655 22.9 38.1 48 25 24 Aliaksandr Tarasionak France 2319558 64.3 1277774 19.9 36.1 54 26 Croatia 85768 4.3 161957 37.7 19.9 23 55 Czech Republic 286043 10.7 317916 29.7 26.7 31 39 Switzerland 415473 8.1 271298 33.5 51.3 28 9 Sweden 401664 9.6 235752 24.6 41.8 45 18 Estonia 31454 1.3 31989 24.6 24.2 43 43 Japan 4449263 127.1 3516309 27.7 35.0 35 27 1 2012. 2 2013 Source: The table is built based on the statistical data from: Yearbook of Tourism Statistics (2015) and Human Development Report (2014). Attachment 2. Countries included in the “close semi-periphery” group Country GDP. million dollars 1 Popula- tion. million people2 Accommoda- tion capacity. beds2 Bed-places per 1000 inhabitants2 GDP per capinta. thousand dollars1 Rank according to the number of bed-places per 1000 inhabitants Rank ac- cording to GDP per capita Kazakhstan 352698 16.4 92053 5.6 21.5 99 51 Korea 1454104 49.3 222395 4.5 29.5 105 35 Kuwait 286239 3.4 15365 4.5 84.2 104 4 Lithuania 70662 3 27793 9.3 23.6 80 44 Oman 148634 3.6 22521 6.3 41.3 95 20 Poland 845863 38.2 281774 7.4 22.1 88 49 Russia 3310675 142.8 676810 4.7 23.2 102 45 Chile 371342 17.6 151668 8.6 21.1 82 54 1 2012. 2 2013 Source: The table is built based on the statistical data from: Yearbook of Tourism Statistics (2015) and Human Development Report (2014). Attachment 3. Countries included in the “distant semi-periphery” group Country GDP. million dollars 1 Population. million people2 Accommoda- tion capacity. beds2 Bed-places per 1000 inhabitants2 GDP per capinta. thousand dollars1 Rank according to the number of bed-places per 1000 inhabitants Rank accord- ing to GDP per capita Albania 29578 3.2 32004 10.0 9.2 75 96 Armenia 21873 3 31780 10.6 7.3 73 108 Barbados 4590 0.3 15475 51.6 15.3 18 70 Belize 2531 0.3 13015 43.4 8.4 20 101 Bulgaria 113314 7.2 262196 36.4 15.7 26 68 Grenada 1179 0.1 2879 28.8 11.8 32 81 Dominica 963 0.1 2818 28.2 9.6 33 95 Dominican 114566 10.4 205626 19.8 11.0 55 88 Cape Verde 3156 0.5 15995 32.0 6.3 29 113 Costa Rica 64146 4.9 116583 23.8 13.1 46 78 Lebanon 79243 4.8 123694 25.8 16.5 40 64 Maurice 19433 1.2 25105 20.9 16.2 52 65 Maldives 3381 0.3 30073 100.2 11.3 5 87 Mexico 1974411 122.3 1344592 11.0 16.1 72 66 Palau 302.4 0.021 3565 169.8 14.4 3 74 Panama 64955 3.9 47144 12.1 16.7 69 63 Geo-economic position of Belarus as a tourist destination 25 Peru 352731 30.4 386842 12.7 11.6 66 84 Romania 373978 21.7 276119 12.7 17.2 67 61 Samoa 987 0.2 4318 21.6 4.9 51 120 Saint Vincent and Grenadine 1027 0.1 5190 51.9 10.3 17 92 Saint Lucy 2048 0.2 12118 60.6 10.2 13 93 Thailand 910262 67 1350220 20.2 13.6 53 77 Tunisia 116732 11 240249 21.8 10.6 50 91 Uruguay 61084 3.4 33200 9.8 18.0 77 59 Fiji 6797 0.9 23845 26.5 7.6 38 104 Montenegro 8424 0.6 34935 58.2 14.0 14 76 Ecuador 155430 15.7 157591 10.0 9.9 74 94 Jamaica 23579 2.8 49705 17.8 8.4 56 102 1 2012. 2 2013 Source: The table is built based on the statistical data from: Yearbook of Tourism Statistics (2015) and Human Development Report (2014). Attachment 4. Countries included in the “periphery” group Country GDP. million dollars1 Population. million people2 Accommodation capacity. beds2 Bed-places per 1000 inhabitants2 GDP per capinta. thou- sand dollars1 Rank according to the number of bed-places per 1000 inhabitants Rank accord- ing to GDP per capita Azerbaijan 149347 9.4 33951 3.6 15.9 112 67 Algeria 500937 39.2 93454 2.4 12.8 125 79 Angola 157939 21.5 43574 2.0 7.3 130 107 Bangladesh 370202 156.6 7565 0.0 2.4 158 137 Belarus 158559 9.4 29908 3.2 16.9 115 62 Benin 17376 10.3 30022 2.9 1.7 119 144 Bolivia 60455 10.7 44391 4.1 5.7 106 116 Bosnia and Herzegovina 34899 3.8 25270 6.7 9.2 91 97 Botswana 28886 2 15804 7.9 14.4 83 73 Brazil 2865920 200.4 925598 4.6 14.3 103 75 Burkina Faso 25823 16.9 14565 0.9 1.5 140 148 Butane 5992 0.8 5572 7.0 7.5 89 105 Venezuela 536317 30.4 286312 9.4 17.6 79 60 Vietnam 450430 91.7 812000 8.9 4.9 81 121 Gambia 2817 1.8 6743 3.7 1.6 109 147 Guatemala 108345 15.5 119778 7.7 7.0 84 110 Guinea 14227 11.7 5808 0.5 1.2 150 155 Georgia 28771 4.3 32165 7.5 6.7 87 112 Egypt 877239 82.1 399478 4.9 10.7 101 90 Zambia 43355 14.5 73579 5.1 3.0 100 130 Zimbabwe 18852 14.1 12081 0.9 1.3 142 152 India 6323105 1252.1 150706 0.1 5.1 156 119 Indonesia 2213114 249.9 664843 2.7 8.9 121 100 Jordan 82782 7.3 49157 6.7 11.3 90 86 Iraq 491013 33.8 2273 0.1 14.5 157 72 Iran 1196681 77.4 219505 2.8 15.5 120 69 Yemen 97502 24.4 75793 3.1 4.0 116 128 26 Aliaksandr Tarasionak Cambodia 42114 15.1 87079 5.8 2.8 97 133 Cameroon 56887 22.3 42170 1.9 2.6 133 135 Kenya 93640 44.4 47019 1.1 2.1 139 140 China 14924298 1385.6 2705013 2.0 10.8 132 89 Colombia 564482 48.3 316663 6.6 11.7 92 83 Comoros 1045 0.7 556 0.8 1.5 147 149 Congo 24776 4.4 25020 5.7 5.6 98 117 Ivory Coast 55764 20.3 46510 2.3 2.7 127 134 Kyrgystan 15659 5.5 4615 0.8 2.8 143 131 Lao PDR 29838 6.8 52301 7.7 4.4 85 125 Lesotho 4973 2.1 4846 2.3 2.4 126 136 Madagascar 31556 22.9 35398 1.5 1.4 136 151 Macedonia 24587 2.1 15744 7.5 11.7 86 82 Mali 24587 15.3 12666 0.8 1.6 144 145 Morocco 226974 33 207566 6.3 6.9 94 111 Mozambique 51269 52.8 45403 0.9 1.0 141 156 Moldova 14511 3.5 5811 1.7 4.1 135 127 Namibia 21013 2.3 8570 3.7 9.1 110 98 Nepal 59242 27.8 22871 0.8 2.1 145 139 Niger 15735 17.8 3414 0.2 0.9 154 158 Nigeria 944384 173.6 367972 2.1 5.4 129 118 Nicaragua 25949 6.1 19850 3.3 4.3 113 126 Palestine 19900 4.3 13902 3.2 4.6 114 124 Paraguay 49062 6.8 25281 3.7 7.2 111 109 Rwanda 16272 11.8 14658 1.2 1.4 137 150 Salvador 46904 6.3 11051 1.8 7.4 134 106 Sao Tome and Principe 567 0.2 609 3.0 2.8 118 132 Swaziland 7094 1.2 2910 2.4 5.9 124 115 Senegal 30653 14.1 34196 2.4 2.2 123 138 Serbia 110077 9.5 55729 5.9 11.6 96 85 Syria 107000 21.9 56527 2.6 4.9 122 122 Solomon Islands 1178 0.6 3890 6.5 2.0 93 142 Sudan 128060 38 12893 0.3 3.4 151 129 Surinam 7587 0.5 1913 3.8 15.2 108 71 Sierra Leone 9675 6.1 4720 0.8 1.6 149 146 Timor-Leste 1997 1.1 871 0.8 1.8 148 143 Togo 8745 6.8 8000 1.2 1.3 138 153 Uzbekistan 135975 28.9 57396 2.0 4.7 131 123 Ukraine 376606 45.2 178506 3.9 8.3 107 103 Philippines 590892 98.4 80090 0.8 6.0 146 114 CAR 4434 4.6 1403 0.3 1.0 152 157 Chad 25638 12.8 2380 0.2 2.0 155 141 Sri Lanka 188761 21.3 46734 2.2 8.9 128 99 Ethiopia 114614 94.1 25294 0.3 1.2 153 154 South Africa 633019 52.8 163750 3.1 12.0 117 80 1 2012. 2 2013 Source: The table is built based on the statistical data from: Yearbook of Tourism Statistics (2015) and Human Development Report (2014).