1. Introduction A. Williams and V. Baláž (2001) in their book “Tour- ism in transition: Economic change in Central Eu- rope: Tourism, Retailing and Consumption” discuss focused on problems of several sectors of the econ- omy, namely in tourism, retailing and consumption. Although Westerners’ attention was concentrated on the post-socialist transition from around 1990, A. Gosar (2012) considers that very little interest was shown for unstable Southeast Europe, espe- cially for the western Balkans and former Yugoslavia countries. Countries of the former Yugoslavia, since the Second World War and up to the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, were part of communist rule and centrally planned (socialist) economies. In 1991/2, ethnic violence erupted in Yugoslavia, as several re- publics declared independence (Gosar, 2012, p. 374), among which was Macedonia. Thus, Macedonia in- dependently enters the global tourism market and had to struggle with the destination recognition at first. Because of the general political and economic setting of Yugoslavia, where ethnic disputes lasted through the last decade of the twentieth century, Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2019, 9(3), 23–32 https://doi.org/10.26881/jpgs.2019.3.04 EvolutIon and chanGES of tourISm In macEdonIa In thE PoSt-SocIalISt PErIod (1991–2018) Dejan Iliev Institute of Geography, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Arhimedova 3, 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia, e-mail: d.iliev@hotmail.com; diliev@pmf.ukim.mk citation Iliev D., 2019, Evolution and changes of tourism in Macedonia in the post-socialist period (1991–2018), Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 9(3), 23–32. abstract The study provides a historical and contextual analysis of the evolution of tourism in Macedonia. The time scope is defined as the period between 1991 and in 2018. The study investigates the tourism development in Macedonia in the post-socialist period of the country, using the Butler (1980) Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) model as an analytical tool. The model provides a framework to explain the complex processes of the development and changes in tourism in the country over the years. For this purpose, an analysis of secondary data sources is implemented to find the changes in the evolutionary stages of tourism development. The findings show that tourism in Macedonia is in a stage of development, and that it has not yet reached the consolidation stage. Lastly, the study offers a better understanding of how tourism in Macedonia is changing in the complex post-socialist period. Key words tourism development, evolution, TALC model, post-socialist period, Macedonia. received: 02 July 2019 accepted: 06 September 2019 Published: 30 September 2019 24 Dejan Iliev and where the transition from communism to de- mocracy has been slow, the 1990s were character- ized by slow economic development, even downfall, in particular in the tourism sector (Gosar, 2012). Be- cause a market economy was introduced in the tour- ism sector countries of the former Yugoslavia have gone through a whirlwind of changes, as the result of the regional instability and the transition itself (Go- sar, 2012). Tourism development in the post-socialist countries was associated with the desire to make up for the lost time and the fast growth of income from tourism industry (Banaszkiewicz et al., 2016). Within the Socialist countries much of the domestic tourism was regularized as “social tourism”, assigned holidays that were not bought but were the privilege of one’s employment or Party position (Banaszkiewicz et al., 2016, p. 109). Also, they noticed that the transitions from those systems and sub-systems have been al- most total and transformational. R. Butler (1980) suggests that without compre- hensive planning strategies and suitable tourism policy, destinations are intended to face of eventual decline and possible collapse. This argument is espe- cially characteristic to many post-socialist countries, particularly in Macedonia, where the development of tourism after the independence of the country is characterized by decaying infrastructure, weak link- age with other economic sectors, inherent shortfalls in long-term strategic tourism planning, political and economic instability and so on. At independ- ence, the Macedonia government depended almost exclusively on a few sectors, namely, industry, agri- culture and trade. In consequence, Macedonia has increasingly turned to the development of tourism as a possible source of foreign exchange earnings, job creation and economic growth, as is the case with many post-socialist countries in Southeast Eu- rope. Therefore, Macedonia has embraced tourism as a strategy for socio-economic development, as is the case with many post-socialist countries in South- east Europe. Governments in these countries often consider the development of tourism as a generator of economic growth, job creation and reliable source of foreign exchange receipts. The study analyses the developments and changes in the tourism sector in the period 1991– 2018. The study uses Butler’s (1980) Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) model as a conceptual framework of analysis of the complexity of tourism development at its different stages in Macedonia. The identifica- tion of the new stages of tourism development in Macedonia derives from specific characteristics of each stage, including volume of tourists and nights spent, changes in the socio-economic indicators of the tourism development, certain attention is paid to the government’s role in the tourism policy and planning strategy, and the importance of tourism in the national economy. The paper organised in five sections. The second section explores the concept and gives a brief over- view of the literature on the TALC model. The third section addresses the study’s methodology and data source. In the fourth section applies a TALC model to Macedonia. The fifth section summarises the study with certain discussions and conclusions. 2. conceptual framework and brief overview of talc model Authors such as R. Butler (1980), W. Christaller (1964), C. Stansfield (1978), proposed the idea of an order- ly progression in the life cycle of tourist resources. The Butler’s (1980) model of a cycle of evolution of a tourism area was used in studies (Choy, 1992; Din, 1992; Getz, 1992; Haywood, 1986, 1992; Smith, 1992; Williams, 1993). The Butler lifecycle model explains the evolution of tourism into the stages of exploration, involve- ment, development, consolidation, and stagnation, followed alternatively by either decline or rejuvena- tion (fig. 1.). According to D. Weaver (2006) that is an ideal model of evolution. But, someone authors such as E. Aguiló et al. (2005), B. Prideaux (2000), M. Uysal et al. (2012) saw specific deviations and were critical of the lifecycle model for its simplicity, its lack of pre- cision, and its limited application scale. On the other hand, despite the criticism, the life cycle model is a useful framework for various scien- tific analyses and tool for research in tourism devel- opment. That’s why а various researchers agree that the life cycle model has played a significant role in tourism planning and development (Candela, Fi- gini, 2012; De Camillis et al., 2010; Hovinen, 2002). A general conclusion of the life cycle model that it is a useful conceptual tool. It’s simple design and well- described stages appeal to researchers from a vari- ety of disciplines and it has been applied to a range of studies. With the application of this model in the study specific stages in the evolutionary sequence are described. 3. method and data source The research methodology is based on a descriptive approach attempting to describe the phenomena relevant to the topic examined. The quantitative method has been used to interpret the research Evolution and changes of tourism in Macedonia in the post-socialist period (1991–2018) 25 data, as well as methods of comparison, analysis and synthesis. A simple descriptive statistical method was used to process, analyse and present the data indicating changes in tourism in the post-socialist period of Macedonia. The research is based on sec- ondary statistical data available from the official websites of the State Statistical Office and the Na- tional Bank of Macedonia. The author has consulted research and other papers published in relevant scientific journals and proceedings, as well as other publications and national strategies, informal dis- cussions and dialogue with stakeholders in the tour- ism industry and policy that helped the author in the preparation of the paper. Total annual tourist arrivals and total annual tourist nights spent (most afforda- ble and most comparable) constitute the main units of measure for presenting tourism development in the country. Data set covers the period 1991–2018. Some data series are of limited scope due to the availability of data and this imposed a certain limita- tion to the depth of this research. In terms of geo- graphical scope, this paper focuses on the adminis- trative territory of Macedonia. 4. an application of Butler’s (1980) tourist area life cycle model to macedonia 4.1. tourism development in the complex post- socialist period 1991–2001 (decline stage) The break-up of Yugoslavia had a disastrous impact on Macedonian tourism. In the early years of inde- pendence Macedonia reconciliation itself and ac- commodated itself to the fact that international visi- tors have most often just crossed the territory of the state. In such conditions, the tourism development in Macedonia was moving downwards, aided addi- tionally by the poor and unstable economy of the country (Iliev, Kitevski, 2016). The tourist visitors in the period 1991–2001 have a trend of steadily declining. In 1992, one year after the independence of the country, Macedonia tour- ism had reached, in term of nights spent in tourist amenities, just 53.8% of its peak year 1987. In 2001, the lowest tourist turnover was registered (333,308 tourist arrivals and 1,254,582 overnights stays of tourists) (tab. 1). Compared to 1987 (the most suc- cessful year in the tourism development of Macedo- nia), there is a decrease in the arrival of tourists by 3.5 times and a reduction in the number of nights spent by tourists by 3.2 times (Iliev et al., 2014). The post- 1991 period is characterized as a very unstable pe- riod with stagnation and reduces foreign exchange earnings from tourism (Iliev et al., 2014). The reduc- tion in foreign exchange earnings is occurs mostly Rejuvenation Reduced growth Stabilization Stagnation Decline Consolidation Immediate decline Development Involvement Exploration Critical range of elements of capacity Fig. 1. Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) model Source: adapted according to Butler (1980). 26 Dejan Iliev in 1997 when 15.16 million US $ was registered, in 1998 – 16.70 million US $ and in 2001 – 25.95 mil- lion US $ (Iliev, 2010). The country has experienced persistent shortfalls in foreign exchange earnings, due to decreased of foreign tourist arrivals. The structure of foreign demand has changed since in- dependence. Macedonia tourism has geographically become dependent on short-distance regional visits of residents of Serbia and Montenegro, Bulgaria, Al- bania etc., while Western markets have cautiously re- sponded to the new tourist destination “Macedonia”. A major role for the decline of tourism development in this period was the military conflicts in the coun- tries of the former Yugoslavia, the disordered politi- cal and security situation of the region, the blockade of the international community, the military conflict in Macedonia in 2001, on the basis of that the coun- try gained the image of an unsafe tourist destination for foreign tourists. In the catering trade in the period 1991–2001 some decline in the development was evident (tab.  2). The hotels and catering facilities that prior to 1991 were in public ownership entered the pro- cess of transformation and privatization, while parts of them were closed (Iliev et al., 2014). Dominant is- sues that the tourist enterprises were faced: the low capability of enterprises to adapt to the demands of domestic and international markets; lack of advisory business tourism infrastructure; unfavorable finan- cial services for new and small businesses, i.e. inter- est rates were too high, the procedure for obtaining financial support was complex and expensive etc. (Iliev, Kitevski, 2016). The structure of the accommodation capaci- ties is unsatisfactory from the aspect of the level of equipment, offer and the quality of the services. In the hotel sector, there are mostly lower categories of hotels and those with more bedded rooms. Also, there were not any high-class hotels in the country (Spatial plan…, 2004). In this period, Macedonia had a lack of international hotel brands, thus reducing the ability of the country to attract foreign tourists (Iliev et al., 2014). Regarding the geographical distribution of ac- commodation capacities, 80.5% of the total capaci- ties were located in the lake places, 6.3% in the capi- tal Skopje, 4.7% in the mountainous places, 2.7% in the spa places, and 5.9% in other places (Spatial plan…, 2004). There was a lack of quality hotel ac- commodation outside Skopje, Ohrid, Struga and Mavrovo (main tourist destinations). There were ex- amples of overestimated categorization of accom- modation facilities that did not correspond to the real standards. One of the major problems was the “grey accommodation“. А large part of the facilities in private ownership did not register their tourists, and in that way avoided paying the tourist tax which was not in favour of the municipalities and the state (Iliev et al., 2014). In the process of privatization of tourism compa- nies and facilities there was a problem related to the dismissal of surplus employees and the increase in unemployment. The problems left a mark on the op- eration of tourism enterprises as low-quality servic- es, delayed modernization, which further reduced the country’s competitiveness as a tourist destina- tion (Iliev, Kitevski, 2016). In the period after 1991, there is declining employment in the catering estab- lishments (tab. 2), which coincides with the number of the touristic arrivals and the realized foreign ex- change earnings in the country. The problem with the operation of the so-called grey economy was Tab. 1. Number of tourists and number of nights spent (1991–2001) Year Number of tourists Number of nights spent total domestic foreign total domestic foreign 1991 710,278 415,955 294,323 2,740,484 2,164,146 576,338 1995 503,837 356,830 147,077 1,804,310 1,528,561 275,749 2001 333,308 234,362 98,946 1,254,582 1,041,831 212,751 Source: Tourism…, 2013. Tab. 2. General development overview of catering trade and services (1991–2001) Year Catering trade and services Number of employeesNumber of catering business units Beds in catering trade and services, pri- vate rooms and vacation facilities Seats 1991 3,663 80,296 163,703 12,764 1995 2,543 78,913 133,431 9,946 2001 1,772 74,130 128,274 10,070 Source: Statistical…, 2013. Evolution and changes of tourism in Macedonia in the post-socialist period (1991–2018) 27 obvious. It was very difficult to record the total work- force in the tourism sector, due to a grey tourism economy in the country (e.g. unregistered accom- modation facilities, unregistered touristic workers, seasonal unregistered persons etc.). Finally, because of the political and economic cir- cumstances in the region of the Balkans and in the country itself, there was stagnation and a decline in the tourism turnover in Macedonia. Thus, instead of the rapid growth of the tourist economy, antici- pated for the period 1985-2000, and the estimates for increasing the number of beds by five times and the number of nights spent by seven times, were not realized (Spatial plan…, 2004). Therefore, the period 1991–2001 is characterised as relatively bad period in the tourism development in Macedonia, where the domestic tourism had the principal place. There are some major reasons for the bad results in tourism development, some of them are more im- portant: the no competitiveness of Macedonia on the international market; inadequate tourist offer and modest tourist propaganda and presentation on the international tourism market; long period of transformation of tourist enterprises and unfinished privatization; unstable economy and unfavourable political and security situation; and high unemploy- ment rate. 4.2. new life cycle of tourism in macedonia One of the aims of the study was identifying the new tourism life cycle of Macedonia. Figure 2 offers a graphic presentation of data on the key variables (total tourist arrivals and total tourist nights spent), which are necessary for determining these goals. Тhe period 2002–2018 contains only three stages: exploration, involvement and development (fig. 2). 4.2.1. Exploration Stage (2002-2004) This is a stage of political, security and economic stabilization of Macedonia. The Government of the Republic of Macedonia identified tourism, together with agriculture, as a priority sector for development. In 2003, the “Global Study on Tourism in the Republic of Macedonia” was developed, but it was not imple- mented (National…, 2009). Later, the Ministry of En- vironment and Physical Planning, according to the order of the Government of the state, has prepared a spatial development strategy “Spatial Plan of the Republic of Macedonia” with a special sector study “Tourism Development and Organization of Tour- ist Areas”. This sector study has offered long-term goals for the development and organization of the country’s tourism offer, which defines a total of 10 tourist regions, 54 tourist zones and 200 tourist sites. However, tourism in the first years after the war in the country did not achieve the desired level of de- velopment. After political stabilization in 2002 the tourist arrivals have jumped to 441,712, and in 2004 to 465,015. Generally, during the exploration stage (2002–2004), tourism in Macedonia was character- ized by the unfavourable structure of accommoda- tion capacities (in terms of basic and complimentary accommodation facilities); seasonal use of accom- modation facilities; low-level of equipment, poor supply and quality of services (Spatial plan…, 2004); Fig. 2. Life cycle of tourism in Macedonia, 1991–2018 Source: Made by the author based on the data from the State Statistical Office. 28 Dejan Iliev a lack of marketing strategy and insufficient presen- tation of the country on the international tourism market; the absence of a specific tourism product offer; the growth rate of tourism had no significant impact on the country’s economy. 4.2.2. Involvement Stage (2005–2006) In December 2005, at the European Union summit in Brussels, Macedonia received the status of a can- didate country for membership in the European Union. This EU decision positively influenced the country’s economic and tourism development. The development rate in 2005 was 8%. GDP per capita is 2,550 euro. Inflation is low, slightly above 2%, while the national currency – denar is tied to the euro and is stable. Unemployment is at an unacceptably high level of 36% (National…, 2009, p. 2). Foreign exchange earnings from tourism have steadily in- creased, so in 2006 they exceeded 100 million euro (Iliev et al., 2014). The number of foreign tourists has increased dramatically in the last few years after re- solving some of the regional problems. Thus, from 122,861 foreign tourist arrivals in 2002, that number increased to 202,357 in 2006. In the same period, do- mestic tourism decreased from 318,851 to 297,116 tourist arrivals (Tourism…, 2011), thus the domestic market failed to follow the upward trend in the for- eign market. In general, the awareness of the impor- tance of tourism for the country has increased sig- nificantly among the authorities, people involved in the tourism sector and the local population. 4.2.3. development Stage (2007–2018) Regional political processes, general economic con- ditions and increased awareness of tourism influ- enced the trends of tourist arrivals and economic development of the country. The growth rates of the gross domestic product of 6.1% in 2007 and 5.0% in 2008, are the highest ever in the country’s develop- ment. In this period, the contribution of the tourism sector to the gross domestic product of the country is somewhere between 2.3% in 2007 and 2.7% in 2008 (National…, 2009). In 2009 followed a period of global economic crisis, so that the real GDP rate in the country declined to 0.9% (Iliev et al., 2014). After the global economic crisis following a period of recovery of the national economy where the real growth rate of GDP ranges from 2.9% in 2010 and 2.8% in 2011. Later, in Macedonia, tourism contrib- utes 5.2% to national GDP in 2014 (National…, 2016). The total amount of travel and tourism in GDP was 288 USD per capita (National…, 2016). In 2014 about 4.7% of the Macedonian labour force was directly or indirectly employed by the tourism industry. Since 2008/2009 (when there were 27,000 employees), the number of people employed in the tourism industry in Macedonia has steadily grown, reaching 33,100 in 2014 (National…, 2016). During this period, a new development strategy for tourism for 2009–2013 was prepared. It aimed to provide the necessary confidence of the involved actors in tourism, foreign and domestic investors, as well as international donor agencies, to devote themselves to tourism in the Republic of Macedonia (National…, 2009). The strategy also aimed to ena- ble the allocation of IPA funds in the field of tourism in the most efficient way. Later, a new national tour- ism strategy was developed in 2016, for assessing the proposed actions of the previous strategy and proposing new development directions. The second national tourist strategy identifies regions and prod- ucts not yet discovered. The development stage (2007–2018) was charac- terized by a continuous increase in the number and nights spent of tourists (fig. 2). So, Macedonian tour- ism is in constant change. The registrations of foreign visitors in accommodation facilities in 2007 reached/ exceeded the 2000 level. This recent recovery has been sustained with a solid growth of 10.8% in 2008 despite the unfavourable international economic situation that begins to affect travel decisions (Na- tional…, 2009). After the downward trend in 2009 and 2010, the number of realized annual arrivals has been increasing in the next years until 2014 reach- ing around 735,650 arrivals. Macedonian tourism recorded a record number in 2018 with 1,126,935 total tourists and 3,176,808 total nights spent (State Statistical Office – MakStat database). The year 2018 reflected the highest number of foreign tourists and their overnight stays in Macedo- nia’s history since independence, with 707,345 for- eign tourists and 1,491,535 nights spent, which were 5.8 times higher than the number of foreign tour- ists and 5.4 times higher than foreign nights spent recorded in 2002. Regarding the foreign market, the most important are Turkish tourists with 166,620 nights spent (with a market share of 5.2% and an average stay of tourists 1.5 days), and Dutch tour- ists with 136,663 nights spent (with a market share of 4.3% and average stay of tourists 4.9 days). Then follow: Polish, Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek and German tourists (State Statistical Office – MakStat database). By comparing arrivals from domestic tourists with foreign – the characteristic is an interesting pattern of development – while the number of registered ar- rivals from Macedonians decreased by about 40,000 between 2008 and 2014 (negative annual rate of 2.0%), the number of foreign arrivals is increased by 170,000 (positive annual rate of 8.9%) (Nation- al…, 2016, p. 10). Similar, the number of domestic Evolution and changes of tourism in Macedonia in the post-socialist period (1991–2018) 29 overnight stays decreased to approximately 400,000 in the period 2008–2014 (negative annual growth rate of 4.2%), on the other, an increase of approxi- mately the same number of nights spent by foreign tourists was registered (positive growth rate from 7.8%) (National…, 2016). Although the share of overnight stays of domestic tourists decreased, how- ever, with an average stay of 4,02 days in 2018 they remain an important market (tab. 3). The accommodation particularly in the area of hotel accommodation, marks significant progress in the quality of services. The number of beds in hotels has increased from 10,364 in 2008 to 21,530 in 2018 (State Statistical Office – MakStat database), with the highest increase in the 4-star hotel segment. As well, there is an increase in the number of beds in hotels with 5 and 3 stars, while the decrease in hotels with 1 and 2 stars is noticeable. The entrance of several well-known hotel brands like Marriott and Hilton provides confidence in the general quality of ac- commodation offered and attracting new investors in this sector. The largest numbers of beds are still in the cat- egory of “private accommodation facilities” with 26,780 in 2018 and share of around 35% of the total volume (State Statistical Office – MakStat database). In 2018, most of the registered overnights (87%) are realized in the hotels and facilities for private accom- modation. Overnight stays of foreign tourists are mainly in hotels (91%), while the largest number of nights spent by domestic tourists is realized in pri- vate accommodation (57%). It is assumed that the number of nights spent in private accommodation facilities is considerably higher, but due to the grey economy, it is very difficult to determine the real situation. During the development stage, the government of Macedonia played a major role in encouraging the development of tourism. One of the priorities was the modernization of the airport infrastructure in the country. In 2008, the Macedonian govern- ment signed an agreement with the Turkish com- pany TAV for concession at the airports in Skopje and Ohrid (National…, 2016). Hungarian low-cost airline WizzAir has included Macedonian cities and resorts in their networks. These conditions signifi- cantly increased the number of passengers, and in 2018 a record number of 1.8 million passengers were registered at the Skopje International Airport and the Ohrid St. Paul the Apostle Airport. In addition, in 2007, the Government established the Agency for Promotion and Support of Tourism (National…, 2016), whose goal is the international promotion of Macedonia, subsidizing tour operators and encour- aging the development of tourism in the country. Despite the growth of tourism in Macedonia, the travel and tourism competitiveness index, of Mace- donia in the world’s tourism market has not changed significantly (tab. 4). Tab. 3. More important indicators in tourism development Indicator/year 2012 2018 Average number of overnights – total 3.24 2.82 Average number of nights - domestic tourists 4.29 4.02 Average number of nights - foreign tourists 2.31 2.11 Participation of domestic tourists in the total number of tourist arrivals, in % 47.10 37.23 Participation of foreign tourists in the total number of tourist arrivals, in % 52.90 62.77 Participation of domestic tourists in the total number of overnight stays of tourists, in % 62.30 53.05 Participation of foreign tourists in the total number of overnight stays of tourists, in % 37.70 46.95 Participation of foreign tourists in hotels in the total number of tourist arrivals, in % 89.50 92.29 Participation of foreign tourists (overnight stays) in hotels in the total number of nights spent by foreign tourists, in % 87.30 91.12 Net rate of use of beds in hotels and similar capacities, in % n/a 26.40 Source: State Statistical Office – MakStat database. Tab. 4. The competitiveness of Macedonia in the world’s tourism market Year 2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Index value 3.81 3.68 3.81 3.96 3.98 3.50 3.49 Position in Europe 38 38 37 37 36 34 n/a Position in the world 83/124 83/130 80/133 76/139 75/140 82/141 89/136 Source: Travel…, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017. 30 Dejan Iliev Most of the countries in Southeast Europe are better ranked than Macedonia, such as Greece (24 rank), Croatia (32 rank), Slovenia (41 rank), Bulgaria (45 rank), Montenegro (72 rank) (Travel…, 2017, p. 9). Macedonia is better ranked only from Serbia (95 rank), Albania (98 rank), and Bosnia and Herzegovina (113 rank) (Travel…, 2017, p. 9). The regional compe- tition on the tourism market is very strong. Therefore, Macedonia should use the comparative advantages and offer a diversified, original and competitive tour- ism product which it will compete on the regional and international tourism market. Generally, in the development stage a mod- ern tourist infrastructure was being created, also emerged new travel agencies, accommodation facil- ities and information centres; tourism development plans and strategies were projected and care for the natural environment and cultural landscape were especially targeted. This stage also witnessed new tourism products, developing new and attractive promotional materials, marketing campaigns were aimed at changing the stereotypical image of the country, identifying priority markets, a new national tourism logo and slogan, regulating illegal accom- modation, harmonizing criteria for categorization of accommodation with European standards, the entry of new high-quality international hotels, the provision of favourable conditions for low-budget carriers, and finally strengthening the awareness of the Government and the private sector and the local residents for the role of tourism in the economy. 5. discussion and conclusion The study examines the evolution of tourism dur- ing the post-socialist period of Macedonia through a systemic analysis that identifies key changes in tourism. The research revealed two distinctive pe- riods in the development of tourism in the post- socialist period of Macedonia: (1) Period of decline in tourism development (1991–2001), and (2) New Life Cycle of tourism development with three stages: exploration (2002–2004), involvement (2005–2006), and development (2007–2018). By the late 1990s, Macedonian’s tourism industry had entered the decline stage and the country was not ready to re- ceive an increasing number of international tour- ists. However, the period after 2001 was a period of stabilization and growth of the national economy, larger economic activity and investment, growth of the GDP and its greater openness to world markets (Iliev et al., 2014). The contribution of the service sec- tor to GDP tended to increase. Analysis in the study indicates a dynamic and ongoing increase in total tourist arrivals and nights spent, accommodation facilities, beds, employees etc. Macedonia appears to be at the early development stage of the Butler (1980) model. The entry of the Turkish company TAV, Hungarian low-cost airline WizzAir, hotel brands like Marriott and Hilton mark achievement of the devel- opment stage. However, it should be noted that the weaknesses of existing data available for the tourism sector impose certain obstacles on the analyses. The lack of data available for the tourism sector means a heavy limit for more serious analytical approach in the research of the real economic value of tourism in the economy of the country. Because tourism in Macedonia has shown an unlimited potential for growth, despite econom- ic recessions, it appears that numbers of tourists will continue to increase. The sustainability of the growth of tourism in the development stage will depend on the quality and competitiveness of the tourism product, the marketing campaign, the level of cooperation of the stakeholders in the tourist in- dustry, and the overcoming of potential threats that could push tourism into a possible decline. Accord- ing to the Kohl and Partner (National…, 2016) major threats could be: political and economic instability, faster and more professional development of tour- ism in competing neighbouring countries, non- coordinated development, insufficient financial re- sources for development and marketing of tourism, non-effective use of financial resources, weak organ- izational structure within the public administration, low-budget carriers decide to reduce the number of flights, global crises (e.g. terrorism, refugees). In analysing and predicting the development of tourism in Macedonia, attention should be paid to the unpredictable nature of the dominant socio- political and economic exogenous factors that influ- ence the development of tourism. Most often, these exogenous factors are beyond the control of the creators of tourism policy and tourism planners, and it is very difficult to forecast their future long-term tendencies and impacts on tourism development. As well, the aim of the study was to evaluate the applicability of the Butler (1980) model to the post- socialist tourism development in Macedonia. Thus, the study has comment on the validity of Butler’s (1980) model for application to Macedonia, as well as its usefulness as a conceptual framework for the analysis of the evolution of tourism in the post-so- cialist period of the country. As supposed by But- ler (1980), the evolution of tourism in Macedonia should progress gradually from the consolidation to stagnation stage before entering the decline stage. Tourism in Macedonia has not yet entered the con- solidation stage. According to L. Hwang (2017) when Evolution and changes of tourism in Macedonia in the post-socialist period (1991–2018) 31 a destination reaches the consolidation stage the limits of growth start to become obvious. Although total numbers of tourist will still increase, however, the rate of the increase in numbers of tourist will de- cline (Butler, 1980). In the consolidation stage, the total number of tourists may exceed the number of permanent residents (Butler, 1980). L. Hwang (2017, p. 4) says that “the destination may attempt to use marketing to offset the slowing growth by extend- ing the tourism season beyond traditional dates and by focusing on specialized cohorts of tourists”. However, these efforts cannot contribute enough to achieve the growth from previous stages. Butler’s model, despite its shortcomings (e.g. model is not helpful as a forecasting tool for future long-term tourism development in Macedonia), however, based on the Macedonia case study, it can be determined that the model is a helpful concep- tual frame, and can be used in the systematic analy- sis and explanation of complex social and economic processes of tourism development. references Aguiló E., Alegre J., Sard M., 2005, The persistence of the sun and sand tourism model, Tourism Management, 26(2), 219–231. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2003.11.004 Banaszkiewicz M., Graburn N., Owsianowska S., 2016, Tourism in (Post) socialist Eastern Europe, Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 15(2), 109–121. doi:10.1080/14766825.2 016.1260089 Butler R.W., 1980, The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolu- tion: Implications for management of resources, Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5–12. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.1980. tb00970.x Candela G., Figini P., 2012, The economics of tourism destina- tions, Springer-Verlag Publications, Berlin and Heidelberg. Choy D.J.L., 1992, Life cycle models of Pacific island des- tinations, Journal of Travel Research, 30(3), 26–31. doi:10.1177/004728759203000304 Christaller W., 1964, Some considerations of tourism locations in Europe: The peripheral regions-underdeveloped coun- tries-recreation areas, Papers in Regional Science 12(1), 95–105. doi:10.1111/j.1435-5597.1964.tb01256.x De Camillis C., Raggi A., Petti L., 2010, Tourism LCA: State-of- the-art and perspectives, International Journal of Life Cy- cle Assessment, 15(2), 148–155. doi:10.1007/s11367-009- 0139-8 Din K.H., 1992, The “Involvement Stage” in the evolution of a tourist destination, Tourism Recreation Research, 17(1), 10–20. doi:10.1080/02508281.1992.11014637 Getz D., 1992, Tourism planning and the destination life cycle, Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), 752–770. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(92)90065-W Gosar A., 2012, Tourism in post-socialist countries of South- eastern Europe: Trends and challenges, [in:] C.H.C. Hsu, W.C. Gartner (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Research, Publishing House “Routledge”, Abingdon-Oxon, 373–391. Haywood K.M., 1986, Can the tourist-area life cycle be made operational? Tourism Management, 7(3), 154–167. doi:10.1016/0261-5177(86)90002-6 Haywood K.M., 1992, Revisiting resort cycle, Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 351–354. doi:10.1016/0160- 7383(92)90088-7 Hovinen G.R., 2002, Revisiting the destination lifecycle model, Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 209–230. doi:10.1016/ S0160-7383(01)00036-6 Hwang L., 2017, Butler’s Tourism Area Life Cycle and Its Expansion to the Creative Economy, [in]: L.L. Low- ry (ed.), The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Travel and Tourism, SAGE Publications Inc., London. doi:10.4135/9781483368924.n81 Iliev D, Mijalov R., Kitevski G., 2014, Dynamics and level of de- velopment of the tourism sector in the Republic of Mac- edonia in conditions of transition and market economy, [in:] Proceedings of the 3rd REDETE Conference of economic development and entrepreneurship in transition economies: Challenges in the business environment, barriers and chal- lenges for economic and business development, Faculty of Economics University of Banja Luka, Banja Luka, 476–486. Iliev D., 2010, Tourism in function of the integral development of the Republic of Macedonia [doctoral dissertation – un- published], Institute of Geography, Faculty of Natural Sci- ences and Mathematics , Ss. Cyril and Methodius Univer- sity, Skopje. Iliev, D., Kitevski, G., 2016, Transitional privatization of tour- ist enterprises-the main reason for non-competition and slow tourism development in the Republic of Macedonia, [in:] Proceedings of the 5th REDETE Conference of economic development and entrepreneurship in transition economies: Is free trade working for transitional and developing econo- mies?, Faculty of Economics University of Banja Luka, Ban- ja Luka, 391–401. MakStat database, State Statistical Office, http://makstat.stat. gov.mk/PXWeb/pxweb/en/MakStat/MakStat__TirizamU- gostitel__Turizam (accessed 20 June 2019). National strategy for tourism: Republic of Macedonia, 2016, Kohl & Partner, Skopje. National strategy on tourism development 2009–2013, 2009, Ministry of Economy, Skopje. Prideaux B., 2000, The resort development spectrum: A new approach to modeling resort development, Tour- ism Management, 21(3), 225–240. doi:10.1016/s0261- 5177(99)00055-2 Smith A.R., 1992, Beach resort evolution: Implications for planning, Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 304–322. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(92)90083-2 Spatial plan of the Republic of Macedonia: Spatial planning strategy, 2004, Ministry of Environment and Physical Plan- ning, Skopje. Stansfield C., 1978, Atlantic City and the resort cycle: Back- ground to the legalization of gambling, Annals of Tourism Research, 5(2), 238–251. doi:10.1016/0160- 7383(78)90222-0 32 Dejan Iliev Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Macedonia, 2013, State Statistical Office of the Republic of Macedonia, Skopje. Tourism in the Republic of Macedonia, 2006-2010. Statistical review: Transport, tourism and other services, 2011, State Statistical Office of the Republic of Macedonia, Skopje. Tourism in the Republic of Macedonia, 2008-2012. Statistical review: Transport, tourism and other services, 2013, State Statistical Office of the Republic of Macedonia, Skopje. Travel and tourism competitiveness report 2007, furthering the process of economic development, 2007, The World Eco- nomic Forum, Geneva. Travel and tourism competitiveness report 2008, balancing economic development and environmental sustainability, 2008, The World Economic Forum, Geneva. Travel and tourism competitiveness report 2009, managing in a time of turbulence, 2009, The World Economic Forum, Geneva. Travel and tourism competitiveness report 2011, beyond the downturn, 2011, The World Economic Forum, Geneva. Travel and tourism competitiveness report 2013, reducing barri- ers to economic growth and job creation, 2013, The World Economic Forum, Geneva. Travel and tourism competitiveness report 2015, growth through shocks, 2015, The World Economic Forum, Geneva. Travel and tourism competitiveness report 2017, paving the way for a more sustainable and inclusive future, 2017, The World Economic Forum, Geneva. Uysal M., Woo E., Singal M., 2012, The tourist area life cycle (TALC) and its effect on the quality-of-life (QOL) of des- tination community, [in:] M. Uysal, R. Perdue, M. J. Sirgy (eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host com- munities, Springer Science & Business Media Publications, London, 423–443. Weaver D.B., 2006, The ‘plantation’ variant of the TALC in the small-island Caribbean, [in:] R.W. Butler (ed.), The tourism area life cycle, vol. 1: Applications and modifications, Chan- nel View Publications, Clevedon, 185–197. Williams A.M., Baláž V., 2001, Tourism in transition: Economic change in Central Europe (Tourism, Retailing and Consump- tion), I.B. Tauris, London. Williams M.T., 1993, An expansion of the tourist site cycle model: The case of Minorca (Spain), Journal of Tourism Studies, 4(2), 24–32.